3 ms·

> The whole point of functions and classes was to make code reusable. I’m amazed that here we are >40 years on from C++, and still this argument is made. Class

> The whole point of functions and classes was to make code reusable. I’m amazed that here we are >40 years on from C++, and still this argument is made. Classes never encapsulated a module of reusability, except in toy or academic examples. To try and use them in this way either leads to gigantic “god” classes, or so many tiny classes with scaffolding classes between them that the “communication overhead” dwarfs the actual business logic. Code base after code base proves this again and again. I have never seen a “class” be useful as a component of re-use. So what is? Libraries. A public interface/api wrapping a “I don’t care what you did inside”. Bunch of classes, one class, methods? So long as the interface is small and well defined, who cares how it’s structured inside. Modular programming can be done in any paradigm, just think about the api and the internal as separate things. Build some tests at the interface layer, and you’ve got documentation for free too! Re-use happens at the dll or cluster of dll boundaries. Software has a physical aspect to it as well as code.

lr4444lr 2y ago
This is not my experience. Multiple inheritance within a code base of certain sub-functionalities and states is a perfectly good example of reuse. You do not need to go all the way out to the library level. In fact, it is the abstract bases that really minimize the reusable parts that I find most useful. I'm not saying you have to use classes to do this, but they certainly get the job done.
- lll-o-lll 2y ago
  We are talking about different things. If you want to use inheritance inside your module, behind a reasonable API, in order to re-use common logic, I won’t bat an eye. I won’t know, I’m working with the public part of your module. If you structure your code so that people in my team can inherit from your base class (because you didn’t make an interface and left everything public), and later you change some of this common logic, then I will curse your name and the manner of your conception.
- liontwist 2y ago
  Since learning functional programming well. I feel a need to use inheritance in C++ maybe a handful of places. The problem with inherentice reuse is if you need to do something slightly different you are out of luck. Alternatively with functions you call what you need. And can break apart functionality without changing the other reuses.
- redman25 2y ago
  I know that a lot of people advocate for composition over inheritance. Inheritance can add a lot of complexity especially if it is deep or involves a lot of overrides. It can be difficult to find out where a method came from inside the inheritance chain or if it has been overridden and consequently how it will behave. Composition at least makes things a little more obvious where methods are getting their functionality. It also has other benefits in terms of making objects easier to mock.
aiisjustanif 2y ago
Surely this is use case dependent? I’ve worked on projects where modular programming works well and others where not so much.
- lll-o-lll 2y ago
  Specifically here I am talking about the concept of “re-use”. That is, the ability to write a bunch of code that does a “thing” and use that more than once, without significant modification. Modularity is a much bigger concept, related to the engineering of large software systems. These days, “micro-services” is one way that people achieve modularity, but in the old days it was needed for many of the same reasons, but inside the monolith. The overall solution is composed of blocks living at different layers. Re-use also exists inside modules, of course, by using functions or composition or — shudder — inheritance of code. Modular programming has value as soon as more than one team needs to work on something. As it’s impossible to predict the future, my opinion is that it always has value to structure a code-base in this way.

lr4444lr 2y ago

This is not my experience. Multiple inheritance within a code base of certain sub-functionalities and states is a perfectly good example of reuse. You do not need to go all the way out to the library level. In fact, it is the abstract bases that really minimize the reusable parts that I find most useful. I'm not saying you have to use classes to do this, but they certainly get the job done.

lll-o-lll 2y ago
We are talking about different things. If you want to use inheritance inside your module, behind a reasonable API, in order to re-use common logic, I won’t bat an eye. I won’t know, I’m working with the public part of your module. If you structure your code so that people in my team can inherit from your base class (because you didn’t make an interface and left everything public), and later you change some of this common logic, then I will curse your name and the manner of your conception.
liontwist 2y ago
Since learning functional programming well. I feel a need to use inheritance in C++ maybe a handful of places. The problem with inherentice reuse is if you need to do something slightly different you are out of luck. Alternatively with functions you call what you need. And can break apart functionality without changing the other reuses.
redman25 2y ago
I know that a lot of people advocate for composition over inheritance. Inheritance can add a lot of complexity especially if it is deep or involves a lot of overrides. It can be difficult to find out where a method came from inside the inheritance chain or if it has been overridden and consequently how it will behave. Composition at least makes things a little more obvious where methods are getting their functionality. It also has other benefits in terms of making objects easier to mock.

aiisjustanif 2y ago

Surely this is use case dependent? I’ve worked on projects where modular programming works well and others where not so much.

lll-o-lll 2y ago
Specifically here I am talking about the concept of “re-use”. That is, the ability to write a bunch of code that does a “thing” and use that more than once, without significant modification. Modularity is a much bigger concept, related to the engineering of large software systems. These days, “micro-services” is one way that people achieve modularity, but in the old days it was needed for many of the same reasons, but inside the monolith. The overall solution is composed of blocks living at different layers. Re-use also exists inside modules, of course, by using functions or composition or — shudder — inheritance of code. Modular programming has value as soon as more than one team needs to work on something. As it’s impossible to predict the future, my opinion is that it always has value to structure a code-base in this way.