Timeline for Why use an interface when the class can directly implement the functions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2018 at 21:58 | history | edited | Deduplicator | CC BY-SA 4.0 | copy-edited |
| Apr 22, 2012 at 1:14 | comment | added | S.Robins | @leftaroundabout I don't recall calling this a cast in any language in particular. Yes, it's ugly, but the point being made isn't about how to cast, but rather that the interface allows each of the classes represented to be called in the same way. I'm aware that I could have use an "as" operator, or that I could have simply passed each object to a method. As a quick example however ugly, this allows me to make a specific point, in the simplest manner I could think of. | |
| Apr 21, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | Do you call this a cast in Java? Urgh. It's a reference cast, or base-class-pointer cast as we'd call it in C++. Which does not actually cast the object in the sense that anything changes about its implementation (like when you cast a float to double), it just creates are more general pointer that can dispatch over the class hierarchy's vtable. IMO quite an important distinction. | |
| Apr 21, 2012 at 10:44 | history | answered | S.Robins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |