To my surprise as I am developing more interest towards dynamic languages like Ruby and Python. The claim is that they are 100% object oriented but as I read on several basic concepts like interfaces, method overloading, operator overloading are missing. Is it somehow in-built under the cover or do these languages just not need it? If the latter is true are, they 100% object oriented?
EDIT: Based on some answers I see that overloading is available in both Python and Ruby, is it the case in Ruby 1.8.6 and Python 2.5.2 ??
Dynamic languages use duck typing.
Any code can call methods on any object that support those methods, so the concept
of interfaces is extraneous.
Python does in fact support operator overloading(check - 3.3. Special method names) , as does Ruby.
Anyway, you seem to be focusing on aspects that are not essential to object oriented programming. The main focus is on concepts like encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism, which are 100% supported in Python and Ruby.
Thanks to late binding, they do not need it. In Java/C#, interfaces are used to declare that some class has certain methods and it is checked during compile time; in Python, whether a method exists is checked during runtime.
Method overloading in Python does work:
>>> class A:
... def foo(self):
... return "A"
...
>>> class B(A):
... def foo(self):
... return "B"
...
>>> B().foo()
'B'
Are they object-oriented? I'd say yes. It's more of an approach thing rather than if any concrete language has feature X or feature Y.
I can only speak for python, but there have been proposals for interfaces as well as home-written interface examples in the past.
However, the way python works with objects dynamically tends to reduce the need for (and the benefit of) interfaces to some extent.
With a dynamic language, your type binding happens at runtime - interfaces are mostly used for compile time constraints on objects - if this happens at runtime, it eliminates some of the need for interfaces.
name based polymorphism
"For those of you unfamiliar with Python, here's a quick intro to name-based polymorphism. Python objects have an internal dictionary that contains a string for every attribute and method. When you access an attribute or method in Python code, Python simply looks up the string in the dict. Therefore, if what you want is a class that works like a file, you don't need to inherit from file, you just create a class that has the file methods that are needed.
Python also defines a bunch of special methods that get called by the appropriate syntax. For example, a+b is equivalent to a.add(b). There are a few places in Python's internals where it directly manipulates built-in objects, but name-based polymorphism works as you expect about 98% of the time. "
Python does provide operator overloading, e.g. you can define a method __add__ if you want to overload +.
You typically don't need to provide method overloading, since you can pass arbitrary parameters into a single method. In many cases, that single method can have a single body that works for all kinds of objects in the same way. If you want to have different code for different parameter types, you can inspect the type, or double-dispatch.
Interfaces are mostly unnecessary because of duck typing, as rossfabricant points out. A few remaining cases are covered in Python by ABCs (abstract base classes) or Zope interfaces.
Related
While experimenting with Swift I found a lot of useful methods and functions that are prefixed with underscores. For example, strings have a hidden _split() method. For some reason the functions _sin() and _cos() (but not _tan or _sqrt) are also available by default. In fact, the REPL actually suggests me to use these functions when I type sin(2.0). I’m not importing Foundation or anything that imports Foundation.
Why does the Swift offer these “hidden” functions, especially the trig functions which I would have expected to be part of a math module instead of builtins.
Things beginning with underscores are not for public consumption and only exposed publicly for internal reasons (e.g. for testing because the standard library can't use #testable).
By Dave Abrahams
I'm trying to learn/understand Rx, specifically RxJS, and keep seeing references to IObservable, IObserver, etc.
Can anyone tell me what the leading I means and/or where it comes from?
From my searching, it looks like the <T> is for the type. If this is wrong or naive, I'd appreciate some clarification on this as well.
Thanks!
In ye olden days of MFC for C++, Microsoft had Hungarian notation down to a very irritating artform, where all concrete classes were prefixed with C and their COM interfaces with I, this does help avoid the conflict where a COM interface and class might share the same name and so muddy your project.
Part of this notation carried over into .NET, except only interfaces kept the I prefix, but classes and other types dropped their Cs. This does make non-interface-heavy code easier to look at, but can cause ambiguity if you begin a class name with a 2-letter acronym beginning with I (as two-letter acronyms must be completely capitalised according to the the .NET style guidelines), but this is rare.
(I note that generic type name placeholders are prefixed with T too, e.g. TKey and TValue in Dictionary).
An example of why this is necessary is when dealing with collections in .NET, if you're building a reusable library and don't want to expose implementation details (e.g. if you use List<T> or T[] as an underlying collection field type), you can use IList<T> or IReadOnlyList<T> which are interfaces. If the interface was simply called List<T> it would conflict with the actual type List<T>, and ReadOnlyList<T> (an interface) might get confused with ReadOnlyCollection<T> (a class).
You might argue that this wouldn't be a problem if classes and interfaces had a different namespace. C does this: struct types and scalars exist in different namespaces, which unfortunately means that every time a struct type name is used, its usage must be prefixed with struct (e.g. a declaration: struct Foo foo). People workaround this by using typedef with anonymous structs, but I feel the end-result is messy (and the Linux kernel coding guidelines prohibit this too).
In Java, however, interfaces are not prefixed with I but instead have class-like names. Whether this is "correct" or "better" is entirely up for debate. C++ does not have interface types, just pure-abstract classes and multiple-inheritance, so the I prefix isn't typically seen at all outside of COM.
In this video from Google IO 2009, the presenter very quickly says that signatures of methods should return concrete types instead of interfaces.
From what I heard in the video, this has something to do with the GWT Java-to-Javascript compiler.
What's the reason behind this choice ?
What does the interface in the method signature do to the compiler ?
What methods can return interfaces instead of concrete types, and which are better off returning concrete instances ?
This has to do with the gwt-compiler, as you say correctly. EDIT: However, as Daniel noted in a comment below, this does not apply to the gwt-compiler in general but only when using GWT-RPC.
If you declare List instead of ArrayList as the return type, the gwt-compiler will include the complete List-hierarchy (i.e. all types implementing List) in your compiled code. If you use ArrayList, the compiler will only need to include the ArrayList hierarchy (i.e. all types implementing ArrayList -- which usually is just ArrayList itself). Using an interface instead of a concrete class you will pay a penalty in terms of compile time and in the size of your generated code (and thus the amount of code each user has to download when running your app).
You were also asking for the reason: If you use the interface (instead of a concrete class) the compiler does not know at compile time which implementations of these interfaces are going to be used. Thus, it includes all possible implementations.
Regarding your last question: all methods CAN be declared to return interface (that is what you ment, right?). However, the above penalty applies.
And by the way: As I understand it, this problem is not restricted to methods. It applies to all type declarations: variables, parameters. Whenever you use an interface to declare something, the compiler will include the complete hierarchy of sub-interfaces and implementing classes. (So obviously if you declare your own interface with only one or two implementing classes then you are not incurring a big penalty. That is how I use interfaces in GWT.)
In short: use concrete classes whenever possible.
(Small suggestion: it would help if you gave the time stamp when you refer to a video.)
This and other performance tips were presented at Google IO 2011 - High-performance GWT.
At about the 7 min point the speak addresses 'RPC Type Explosion':
For some reason I thought the GWT compiler would optimize it away again but it appears I was mistaken.
similar to the one in Ruby
Yes, as of Scala 2.9 with the -Xexperimental option, one can use the Dynamic trait
(scaladoc). Classes that extend Dynamic get the magical method applyDynamic(methodName, args) which behaves like Ruby's method_missing.
Among other things, the Dynamic trait can be useful for interfacing with dynamic languages on the JVM.
The following is no longer strictly true with the Dynamic trait found in [experimental] Scala 2.9. See the answer from Kipton Barros, for example.
However, Dynamic is still not quite like method_missing, but rather employs compiler magic to effectively rewrite method calls to "missing" methods, as determined statically, to a proxy (applyDynamic). It is the approach of statically-determining the "missing" methods that differentiates it from method_missing from a polymorphism viewpoint: one would need to try and dynamically forward (e.g. with reflection) methods to get true method_missing behavior. (Of course this can be avoided by avoiding sub-types :-)
No. Such a concept does not exist in Java or Scala.
Like Java, all the methods in Scala are 'bound' at compile time (this also determines what method is used for overloading, etc). If a program does compile, said method exists (or did according to the compiler), otherwise it does not. This is why you can get the NoSuchMethodError if you change a class definition without rebuilding all affected classes.
If you are just worried about trying to call a method on an object which conforms to a signature ("typed duck typing"), then perhaps you may be able to get away with structural typing. Structural typing in Scala is magical access over reflection -- thus it defers the 'binding' until runtime and a runtime error may be generated. Unlike method_missing this does not allow the target to handle the error, but it does allow the caller to (and the caller could theoretically call a defined methodMissing method on the target... but this is probably not the best way to approach Scala. Scala is not Ruby :-)
Not really. It doesn't make sense. Scala is a statically-typed language in which methods are bound at compile time; Ruby is a dynamically-typed language in which messages are passed to objects, and these messages are evaluated at runtime, which allows Ruby to handle messages that it doesn't directly respond to, à la method_missing.
You can mimic method_missing in a few ways in Scala, notably by using the Actors library, but it's not quite the same (or nearly as easy) as Ruby's method_missing.
No, this is not possible in Scala 2.8 and earlier.
Interface (or an abstract class with all the methods abstract) is a powerful weapon in a static-typed language such as C#, JAVA. It allows different derived types to be used in a uniformed way. Design patterns encourage us to use interface as much as possible.
However, in a dynamic-typed language, all objects are not checked for their type at compile time. They don't have to implement an interface to be used in a specific way. You just need to make sure that they have some methods (attributes) defined. This makes interface not necessary, or at least not as useful as it is in a static language.
Does a typical dynamic language (e.g. ruby) have interface? If it does, then what are the benefits of having it? If it doesn't, then are we losing many of the beautiful design patterns that require an interface?
Thanks.
I guess there is no single answer for all dynamic languages. In Python, for instance, there are no interfaces, but there is multiple inheritance. Using interface-like classes is still useful:
Interface-like classes can provide default implementation of methods;
Duck-typing is good, but to an extent; sometimes it is useful to be able to write isinstance(x, SomeType), especially when SomeType contains many methods.
Interfaces in dynamic languages are useful as documentation of APIs that can be checked automatically, e.g. by development tools or asserts at runtime.
As an example, zope.interface is the de-facto standard for interfaces in Python. Projects such as Zope and Twisted that expose huge APIs for consumption find it useful, but as far as I know it's not used much outside this type of projects.
In Ruby, which is a dynamically-typed language and only allows single inheritance, you can mimic an "interface" via mixins, rather than polluting the class with the methods of the "interface".
Mixins partially mimic multiple inheritance, allowing an object to "inherit" from multiple sources, but without the ambiguity and complexity of actually having multiple parents. There is only one true parent.
To implement an interface (in the abstract sense, not an actual interface type as in statically-typed languages) You define a module as if it were an interface in a static language. You then include it in the class. Voila! You've gathered the duck type into what is essentially an interface.
Very simplified example:
module Equippable
def weapon
"broadsword"
end
end
class Hero
include Equippable
def hero_method_1
end
def hero_method_2
end
end
class Mount
include Equippable
def mount_method_1
end
end
h = Hero.new
h.weapon # outputs "broadsword"
m = Mount.new
m.weapon # outputs "broadsword"
Equippable is the interface for Hero, Mount, and any other class or model that includes it.
(Obviously, the weapon will most likely be dynamically set by an initializer, which has been simplified away in this example.)