C# Static Classes are not Real Classes

In C# and in Java, there's a common idiom to provide utility functions as static methods of classes that cannot be instantiated. This stems from the limitation that these languages don't allow the definition of any function outside of a class. This can be seen as an anti-pattern, because what's missing is the ability to declare functions, not only classes; like in C++.

The class has to be declared sealed (final in Java) and a private constructor must be created to prevent inadvertent instantiation. 

public sealed class ConversionUtils {
  private ConversionUtils {}
  public static double ConvertTemperature(
    double fromTemperature, 
    TemperatureUnit fromUnit, 
    TemperatureUnit toUnit) { 
    ... 
  }
}

In C# 2.0, static classes were introduced to the language. A static class is a special type of class that's annotated with the static modifier and that:

  1. can't be instantiated (implicitly abstract)
  2. can't be subclassed (implicitly sealed)
  3. can't subclass other classes (only Object), nor implement interfaces
  4. must only contain static members (but you still have to use the redundant static keyword in each one, much like declaring your interface methods public and abstract - which is possible in Java!)
public static class ConversionUtils {
  public static double ConvertTemperature(
    double fromTemperature, 
    TemperatureUnit fromUnit, 
    TemperatureUnit toUnit) { 
    ... 
  }
}

That actually made things worse, because static classes promote the idiom that was being used to create stand-alone functions to the language level. Now the workaround is endorsed by the language itself.

A class in object-oriented languages is supposed to be a blueprint to create instances that share common behavior and state. A static class is not conceptually a class, but a namespace to other constructs. The choice of the class keyword was unfortunate, and a better keyword could have better communicated its intent; like module, or even namespace. There was no backwards compatibility to be preserved, so this was a bad design decision. VB.NET actually has modules that serve exactly this purpose. And so does F#.

A module would have less clutter and its intent would be explicit; instantiation or hierarchies of modules doesn't even come to mind: 

public module ConversionUtils {
  public double ConvertTemperature(
    double fromTemperature, 
    TemperatureUnit fromUnit, 
    TemperatureUnit toUnit) { 
    ... 
  }
}

The result is similar, but without the cognitive load that the class keyword creates.

The usage could be simplified by importing the module (much like a static import in Java); the module name wouldn't need to be specified: 

using module ConversionUtils;

...

var temperatureInKelvin = 
  ConvertTemperature(100, 
    TemperatureUnit.Celsius, 
    TemperatureUnit.Kelvin);

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Acyclic Visitor Pattern

Knock knock The visitor design pattern is a way to add new operations to a hierarchy of classes without having to change the hierarchy itself. For example, with a simple hierarchy of fruits, you can have an IFruitVisitor interface that operates on the different classes in the hierarchy (in C#): interface IFruitVisitor { void Visit(Apple apple); void Visit(Grape grape); } The hierarchy classes then accept the visitor and fulfil the double-dispatching necessary to call the right Visit method: abstract class Fruit { public abstract void Accept(IFruitVisitor visitor); } class Apple : Fruit { public override void Accept(IFruitVisitor visitor) { visitor.Visit(this); } } class Grape : Fruit { public int NumberOfGrapes { get; set; } public override void Accept(IFruitVisitor visitor) { visitor.Visit(this); } } Note how each Accept method looks the same but is actually dispatching to a different method in the visitor ( Visit(Apple) and Visit(Grape) ).
Read more

Some OO Design

"The critical design tool for software development is a mind well educated in design principles. It is not the UML or any other technology." - Craig Larman I've recently found the following interview question on stackoverflow : Basic sales tax is applicable at a rate of 10% on all goods, except books, food, and medical products that are exempt. Import duty is an additional sales tax applicable on all imported goods at a rate of 5%, with no exemptions. When I purchase items I receive a receipt which lists the name of all the items and their price (including tax), finishing with the total cost of the items, and the total amounts of sales taxes paid. The rounding rules for sales tax are that for a tax rate of n%, a shelf price of p contains (np/100 rounded up to the nearest 0.05) amount of sales tax. This is a very familiar example that can be used as a really good gauge of various software development skills. There are many different ways to solve this problem.
Read more

C# Mixins With State

With the C# quasi-mixin pattern , one of the biggest limitations is that the mixins can't introduce state to a class. An alternative was for the mixin interface to require the composing classes to implement a property that the mixin would use as its own, as demonstrated in this example . In the .NET Framework 4.0, the ConditionalWeakTable<TKey, TValue> class can be used to associate arbitrary state to any instance. It's thread safe and it keeps a dictionary of weak references from the target instance to its associated state. If a target instance has no references outside the conditional weak table, then it can be reclaimed by the garbage collector. When that happens, its entry in the table is removed. This makes it possible for a mixin-like class to maintain state for the instances it extends. Let's look at a mixin for a message container: public enum MessageType { Error, Warning, Info } public class Message { public readonly MessageType Type;
Read more