CODEWITHSUNDEEP
pythonoopinstance
Vincent
Vincent

Reputation: 200

Why are classes mostly instantiated through functions?

I've been using python for scientific purposes for some years now. I recently became more familiar with class writing, but I feel like I'm missing something regarding the standard way to instantiate classes.

Say I define a class MyClass.

class MyClass:
    def __init__(self):
        pass

Then I know that I can map x to an instance of MyClass simply with

x = MyClass()

This works well and exactly as I expect.

However, it seems to me that when I use code from standard libraries or from numpy or scipy, I don't create objects in the same way: as far as I know, I generally don't use the name of a class to instantiate it. From what I understand, I'd say that this implies that I use neither class methods nor the default constructor of a class, but rather other functions which are defined outside the class.

For example, numpy's random module uses a class Generator to generate random numbers. However, numpy explicitly recommends not to use the class constructor to get a Generator instance, and to use instead the default_rng function from the random module. So if I want to generate random numbers, I use

rng = numpy.random.default_rng()

to create a Generator instance. This is done without using explicitly the name of the class.

It seems to me that most of the code that I use is written in the latter way. Why is that so? Is it somehow considered bad practice to directly call default class constructors? Is it considered to be a better practice to have separate functions in a module to create class instances? Is it only because some preprocessing must usually be done before creating an instance of a class? (I guess not, because it that case, why not do that in the initialization of the class?)

Upvotes: 5

Views: 951

Answers (2)

Wups
Wups

Reputation: 2569

No, it is not bad practice to use the normal constructor, but sometimes it can be useful to have an alternative constructor.

Reasons for using a function as an alternative constructor to create an object:

(not a complete list and not in any order)

  • Decouple the creation of an object from its implementation.
    Decoupling is often aimed for in OOP.
  • Hide complexity
    The constructor could have many parameters, but often a default object is needed.
  • Easier to read/write and understand
    numpy.random.default_rng() vs numpy.random.Generator(numpy.random.PCG64())
  • A factory, that creates and returns a (different) object, based on sometimes complex conditions.
    e.g. python's open() returns different objects for text files and for binary files.

Where to implement these?

In some other languages, these would be implemented as class methods of the class they instantiate, or even of a new class.
This could be done in python, too, but it is often shorter and more convenient to use, if they are implemented as functions at module level.

Upvotes: 2

DiableJambe
DiableJambe

Reputation: 51

I think np.array call to create np.ndarray is probably one of the most common ways in which an object is created by calling another function. Here is an explanation of that.

What is the difference between ndarray and array in numpy?

I cannot answer for all cases in which we use a function to "wrap" the construction of an object, but I have used such functions to simplify object creation in many situations which results in cleaner code. I can speak of such situations.

For example, the underlying class definition may expose a lot of parameters. It may not make sense to ask the user to provide parameters values for all parameters of the class in 99.9% of the cases (say). These "spurious" parameters may be fixed, or may be inferred from other parameter values in most such situations (e.g., parameter b is 2x parameter a in most cases). The code becomes unwieldy in these 99.9% of cases to explicitly provide values for such parameters, so a wrapper function is written to make it cleaner.

It is possible to use default parameters to deal with many such situations, but it may not make sense to push the inference of parameter values into the class' init function itself. For example, while something like b = 2 * a if a is None else b seems reasonable to put in the init function, where a, b are parameters, it may not be so simple practically (e.g., b may have a complex relationship with a, c, d, f, etc or it may be a class object itself), or there may be 1000 such parameter inferences to be made. So it is logical to separate such "glue" code (which is a customization for ease of usage) into another function and keep the base code (which implements a specific functionality) clean and to-the-point.

Do we want to write another class wrapper instead of a function wrapper? In this case, the new class wrapper will present a simplified interface. But writing a class wrapper in this situation is unnecessary since class implies many things, while a function implies just procedural execution.

Note that this happens mostly in case of library type code which has the largest number of use cases where you want to make usage easiest for most people to use. Such issues do not exist for most "user" code where we simply write classes for a specific application. So in practice when we write applications, we should create classes directly using constructors when possible.

There is also the popular Factory Design pattern that some @ekhumoro referenced above which is very similar to this. But based on text-book definition, the Factory Design pattern seems to be restricted to super/sub classes (I could be wrong, and this might be useless semantics).

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions