virtual-by-default rant

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/18/12 6:37 AM, Manu wrote:
> On 18 March 2012 06:42, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
> <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>> wrote:
>     Then probably struct is what you're looking for.
>
>
> No, I definitely want a class. ref type, gc mem, etc.
> struct doesn't support virtual at all. I have 2 virtuals, this
> particular class has around 50 public methods, almost all of which are
> trivial accessors, called extremely heavily in hot loops. More similar
> classes to come.

Then perhaps it's a good idea to move accessors outside and take 
advantage of UFCS.

> I've never in 15 years seen a large-ish class where the majority of
> methods are virtual. Who writes code like that? It's never come up in
> my industry at least.

I consider thick interfaces and shallow hierarchies good design. An 
interface that's too small invites "inherit to extend" approaches and 
casts. The fact that Java made "extend" a keyword that really means 
"narrow" is quite ironic.


Andrei