Is Inheritance really needed?

Question

I must confess I'm somewhat of an OOP skeptic. Bad pedagogical and laboral experiences with object orientation didn't help. So I converted into a fervent believer in Visual Basic (the classic one!).

Then one day I found out C++ had changed and now had the STL and templates. I really liked that! Made the language useful. Then another day MS decided to apply facial surgery to VB, and I really hated the end result for the gratuitous changes (using "end while" instead of "wend" will make me into a better developer? Why not drop "next" for "end for", too? Why force the getter alongside the setter? Etc.) plus so much Java features which I found useless (inheritance, for instance, and the concept of a hierarchical framework).

And now, several years afterwards, I find myself asking this philosophical question: Is inheritance really needed?

The gang-of-four say we should favor object composition over inheritance. And after thinking of it, I cannot find something you can do with inheritance you cannot do with object aggregation plus interfaces. So I'm wondering, why do we even have it in the first place?

Any ideas? I'd love to see an example of where inheritance would be definitely needed, or where using inheritance instead of composition+interfaces can lead to a simpler and easier to modify design. In former jobs I've found if you need to change the base class, you need to modify also almost all the derived classes for they depended on the behaviour of parent. And if you make the base class' methods virtual... then not much code sharing takes place :(

Else, when I finally create my own programming language (a long unfulfilled desire I've found most developers share), I'd see no point in adding inheritance to it...

Answer 1

Inheritance and Composition have their own pros and cons.

Refer to this related SE question on pros of inheritance and cons of composition.

Prefer composition over inheritance?

Have a look at the example in this documentation link:

The example shows different use cases of overriding by using inheritance as a mean to achieve polymorphism.

Answer 2

//I found this QA very useful. Many have answered this right. But i wanted to add...

1: Ability to define abstract interface - E.g., for plugin developers. Of course, you can use function pointers, but this is better and simpler.

2: Inheritance helps model types very close to their actual relationships. Sometimes a lot of errors get caught at compile time, because you have the right type hierarchy. For instance, shape <-- triangle (lets say there is a lot of code to be reused). You might want to compose triangle with a shape object, but shape is an incomplete type. Inserting dummy implementations like double getArea() {return -1;} will do, but you are opening up room for error. That return -1 can get executed some day!

3: void func(B* b); ... func(new D()); Implicit type conversion gives a great notational convenience since Derived is Base. I remember having read Straustrup saying that he wanted to make classes first class citizens just like fundamental data types (hence overloading operators etc). Implicit conversion from Derived to Base, behaves just like an implicit conversion from a data type to broader compatible one (short to int).

Answer 3

The GoF (and many others) recommend that you only favor composition over inheritance. If you have a class with a very large API, and you only want to add a very small number of methods to it, leaving the base implementation alone, I would find it inappropriate to use composition. You'd have to re-implement all of the public methods of the encapsulated class to just return their value. This is a waste of time (programmer and CPU) when you can just inherit all of this behavior, and spend your time concentrating on new methods.

So, to answer your question, no you don't absolutely need inheritance. There are, however, many situations where it's the right design choice.

Answer 4

The biggest problem with interfaces is that they cannot be changed. Make an interface public, then change it (add a new method to it) and break million applications all around the world, because they have implemented your interface, but not the new method. The app may not even start, a VM may refuse to load it.

Use a base class (not abstract) other programmers can inherit from (and override methods as needed); then add a method to it. Every app using your class will still work, this method just won't be overridden by anyone, but since you provide a base implementation, this one will be used and it may work just fine for all subclasses of your class... it may also cause strange behavior because sometimes overriding it would have been necessary, okay, might be the case, but at least all those million apps in the world will still start up!

I rather have my Java application still running after updating the JDK from 1.6 to 1.7 with some minor bugs (that can be fixed over time) than not having it running it at all (forcing an immediate fix or it will be useless to people).

Answer 5

Inheritance is an implementation decision. Interfaces almost always represent a better design, and should usually be used in an external API.

Why write a lot of boilerplate code forwarding method calls to a composed member object when the compiler will do it for you with inheritance?

This answer to another question summarises my thinking pretty well.

Answer 6

Thanks to all for your answers. I maintain my position that, strictly speaking, inheritance isn't needed, though I believe I found a new appreciation for this feature.

Something else: In my job experience, I have found inheritance leads to simpler, clearer designs when it's brought in late in the project, after it's noticed a lot of the classes have much commonality and you create a base class. In projects where a grand-schema was created from the very beginning, with a lot of classes in an inheritance hierarchy, refactoring is usually painful and dificult.

Seeing some answers mentioning something similar makes me wonder if this might not be exactly how inheritance's supposed to be used: ex post facto. Reminds me of Stepanov's quote: "you don't start with axioms, you end up with axioms after you have a bunch of related proofs". He's a mathematician, so he ought to know something.

Answer 7

Inheritance defines an "Is-A" relationship.

class Point( object ):
    # some set of features: attributes, methods, etc.

class PointWithMass( Point ):
    # An additional feature: mass.

Above, I've used inheritance to formally declare that PointWithMass is a Point.

There are several ways to handle object P1 being a PointWithMass as well as Point. Here are two.

1. Have a reference from PointWithMass object p1 to some Point object p1-friend. The p1-friend has the Point attributes. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it needs to delegate the work to its friend.

2. Rely on language inheritance to assure that all features of Point are also applicable to my PointWithMass object, p1. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it already is a Point object and can just do what needs to be done.

I'd rather not manage the extra objects floating around to assure that all superclass features are part of a subclass object. I'd rather have inheritance to be sure that each subclass is an instance of it's own class, plus is an instance of all superclasses, too.

Edit.

For statically-typed languages, there's a bonus. When I rely on the language to handle this, a PointWithMass can be used anywhere a Point was expected.

For really obscure abuse of inheritance, read about C++'s strange "composition through private inheritance" quagmire. See Any sensible examples of creating inheritance without creating subtyping relations? for some further discussion on this. It conflates inheritance and composition; it doesn't seem to add clarity or precision to the resulting code; it only applies to C++.

Answer 8

The downsides of composition is that it may disguise the relatedness of elements and it may be harder for others to understand. With,say, a 2D Point class and the desire to extend it to higher dimensions, you would presumably have to add (at least) Z getter/setter, modify getDistance(), and maybe add a getVolume() method. So you have the Objects 101 elements: related state and behavior.

A developer with a compositional mindset would presumably have defined a getDistance(x, y) -> double method and would now define a getDistance(x, y, z) -> double method. Or, thinking generally, they might define a getDistance(lambdaGeneratingACoordinateForEveryAxis()) -> double method. Then they would probably write createTwoDimensionalPoint() and createThreeDimensionalPoint() factory methods (or perhaps createNDimensionalPoint(n) ) that would stitch together the various state and behavior.

A developer with an OO mindset would use inheritance. Same amount of complexity in the implementation of domain characteristics, less complexity in terms of initializing the object (constructor takes care of it vs. a Factory method), but not as flexible in terms of what can be initialized.

Now think about it from a comprehensibility / readability standpoint. To understand the composition, one has a large number of functions that are composed programmatically inside another function. So there's little in terms of static code 'structure' (files and keywords and so forth) that makes the relatedness of Z and distance() jump out. In the OO world, you have a great big flashing red light telling you the hierarchy. Additionally, you have an essentially universal vocabulary to discuss structure, widely known graphical notations, a natural hierarchy (at least for single inheritance), etc.

Now, on the other hand, a well-named and constructed Factory method will often make explicit more of the sometimes-obscure relationships between state and behavior, since a compositional mindset facilitates functional code (that is, code that passes state via parameters, not via this ).

In a professional environment with experienced developers, the flexibility of composition generally trumps its more abstract nature. However, one should never discount the importance of comprehensibility, especially in teams that have varying degrees of experience and/or high levels of turnover.

Answer 9

The problem with inheritance is that it conflates the issue of sub-typing (asserting an is-a relationship) and code reuse (e.g., private inheritance is for reuse only).

So, no it's an overloaded word that we don't need. I'd prefer sub-typing (using the 'implements' keyword) and import (kinda like Ruby does it in class definitions)

Answer 10

Absolutely needed? no, But think of lamps. You can create a new lamp from scratch each time you make one, or you can take properties from the original lamp and make all sorts of new styles of lamp that have the same properties as the original, each with their own style.

Or you can make a new lamp from scratch or tell people to look at it a certain way to see the light, or , or, or

Not required, but nice :)

Answer 11

I agree with everyone else about the necessary/useful distinction.

The reason I like OOP is because it lets me write code that's cleaner and more logically organized. One of the biggest benefits comes from the ability to "factor-up" logic that's common to a number of classes. I could give you concrete examples where OOP has seriously reduced the complexity of my code, but that would be boring for you.

Suffice it to say, I heart OOP.

Answer 12

In the following, inheritance is used to present a particular property for all of several specific incarnations of the same type thing. In this case, the GeneralPresenation has a properties that are relevant to all "presentation" (the data passed to an MVC view). The Master Page is the only thing using it and expects a GeneralPresentation, though the specific views expect more info, tailored to their needs.

   public abstract class GeneralPresentation
    {
        public GeneralPresentation()
        {
            MenuPages = new List<Page>();
        }
        public IEnumerable<Page> MenuPages { get; set; }
        public string Title { get; set; }
    }

    public class IndexPresentation : GeneralPresentation
    {
        public IndexPresentation() { IndexPage = new Page(); }
        public Page IndexPage { get; set; }
    }

    public class InsertPresentation : GeneralPresentation
    {
        public InsertPresentation() { 
          InsertPage = new Page(); 
          ValidationInfo = new PageValidationInfo(); 
        }
        public PageValidationInfo ValidationInfo { get; set; }
        public Page InsertPage { get; set; }
    }

Answer 13

There are a lot of features in a programming language that are not really needed. But they are there for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to reusability and maintainability.

All a business cares about is producing (quality of course) cheaply and quickly.

As a developer you help do this is by becoming more efficient and productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily reusable and maintainable.

And, among other things, this is what inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without reinventing the wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.

Answer 14

Depends on your definition of "needed". No, there is nothing that is impossible to do without inheritance, although the alternative may require more verbose code, or a major rewrite of your application.

But there are definitely cases where inheritance is useful. As you say, composition plus interfaces together cover almost all cases, but what if I want to supply a default behavior? An interface can't do that. A base class can. Sometimes, what you want to do is really just override individual methods. Not reimplement the class from scratch (as with an interface), but just change one aspect of it. or you may not want all members of the class to be overridable. Perhaps you have only one or two member methods you want the user to override, and the rest, which calls these (and performs validation and other important tasks before and after the user-overridden methods) are specified once and for all in the base class, and can not be overridden.

Inheritance is often used as a crutch by people who are too obsessed with Java's narrow definition of (and obsession with) OOP though, and in most cases I agree, it's the wrong solution, as if the deeper your class hierarchy, the better your software.

Answer 15

No.

for me, OOP is mostly about encapsulation of state and behavior and polymorphism.

and that is. but if you want static type checking, you'll need some way to group different types, so the compiler can check while still allowing you to use new types in place of another, related type. creating a hierarchy of types lets you use the same concept (classes) for types and for groups of types, so it's the most widely used form.

but there are other ways, i think the most general would be duck typing, and closely related, prototype-based OOP (which isn't inheritance in fact, but it's usually called prototype-based inheritance).

Answer 16

Does anyone else remember all of the OO-purists going ballistic over the COM implementation of "containment" instead of "inheritance?" It achieved essentially the same thing, but with a different kind of implementation. This reminds me of your question.

I strictly try to avoid religious wars in software development. ("vi" OR "emacs" ... when everybody knows its "vi"!) I think they are a sign of small minds. Comp Sci Professors can afford to sit around and debate these things. I'm working in the real world and could care less. All of this stuff are simply attempts at giving useful solutions to real problems. If they work, people will use them. The fact that OO languages and tools have been commercially available on a wide scale for going on 20 years is a pretty good bet that they are useful to a lot of people.

Answer 17

Not needed, but usefull.

Each language has got its own methods to write less code. OOP sometimes gets convoluted, but I think that is the responsability of the developers, the OOP platform is usefull and sharp when it is well used.

Answer 18

I think asking for situations where inheritance is really needed is missing the point a bit. You can fake inheritance by using an interface and some composition. This doesnt mean inheritance is useless. You can do anything you did in VB6 in assembly code with some extra typing, that doesn't mean VB6 was useless.

I usually just start using an interface. Sometimes I notice I actually want to inherit behaviour. That usually means I need a base class. It's that simple.

Answer 19

Inheritance lets me push off a whole bunch of bookkeeping onto the compiler because it gives me polymorphic behavior for object hierarchies that I would otherwise have to create and maintain myself. Regardless of how good a silver bullet OOP is, there will always be instances where you want to employ a certain type of behavior because it just makes sense to do. And ultimately, that's the point of OOP: it makes a certain class of problems much easier to solve.

Answer 20

Inheritance is a good thing when the subclass really is the same kind of object as the superclass. E.g. if you're implementing the Active Record pattern, you're attempting to map a class to a table in the database, and instances of the class to a row in the database. Consequently, it is highly likely that your Active Record classes will share a common interface and implementation of methods like: what is the primary key, whether the current instance is persisted, saving the current instance, validating the current instance, executing callbacks upon validation and/or saving, deleting the current instance, running a SQL query, returning the name of the table that the class maps to, etc.

It also seems from how you phrase your question that you're assuming that inheritance is single but not multiple. If we need multiple inheritance, then we have to use interfaces plus composition to pull off the job. To put a fine point about it, Java assumes that implementation inheritance is singular and interface inheritance can be multiple. One need not go this route. E.g. C++ and Ruby permit multiple inheritance for your implementation and your interface. That said, one should use multiple inheritance with caution (i.e. keep your abstract classes virtual and/or stateless).

That said, as you note, there are too many real-life class hierarchies where the subclasses inherit from the superclass out of convenience rather than bearing a true is-a relationship. So it's unsurprising that a change in the superclass will have side-effects on the subclasses.

Answer 21

Really really short answer: No. Inheritance is not needed because only byte code is truly needed. But obviously, byte code or assemble is not a practically way to write your program. OOP is not the only paradigm for programming. But, I digress.

I went to college for computer science in the early 2000s when inheritance (is a), compositions (has a), and interfaces (does a) were taught on an equal footing. Because of this, I use very little inheritance because it is often suited better by composition. This was stressed because many of the professors had seen bad code (along with what you have described) because of abuse of inheritance.

Regardless of creating a language with or without inheritances, can you create a programming language which prevents bad habits and bad design decisions?

Answer 22

There's lots of useful usages of inheritance, and probably just as many which are less useful. One of the useful ones is the stream class.

You have a method that should be able stream data. By using the stream base class as input to the method you ensure that your method can be used to write to many kinds of streams without change. To the file system, over the network, with compression, etc.