Incase it doesn’t show up:

  • @jaybone
    link
    313 days ago

    Say List is an interface.

    You have implementations like ArrayList and LinkedList.

    Many of those method implementations will differ. But some will be identical. The identical ones go in the abstract base class, so you can share method implementation inheritance without duplicating code.

    That’s why.

    • magic_lobster_party
      link
      fedilink
      113 days ago

      If the lists have shared components then that can be solved with composition. It’s semantically the same as using abstract classes, but with the difference that this code dependency doesn’t need to be exposed to the outside. This makes the dependency more loosely coupled.

      • @jaybone
        link
        113 days ago

        In my example, how is the code dependency exposed to the outside? The caller only knows about the List interface in my example.

        • magic_lobster_party
          link
          fedilink
          013 days ago

          In your example, the declaration of ArrayList look like:

          public class ArrayList extends AbstractList implements List {
          }
          

          The dependence on AbstractList is public. Any public method in AbstractList is also accessible from the outside. It opens up for tricky dependencies that can be difficult to unravel.

          Compare it with my solution:

          public class ArrayList implements List {
              private AbstractList = new AbstractList();
          }
          

          Nothing about the internals of ArrayList is exposed. You’re free to change the internals however you want. There’s no chance any outside code will depend on this implementation detail.

          • @SpaceNoodle
            link
            113 days ago

            That’s not C++, which has more control over such scope.