Large scale usage of Meyer's advice to prefer Non-member,non-friend functions?

后端 未结 8 1077
無奈伤痛
無奈伤痛 2021-02-05 00:15

For some time I\'ve been designing my class interfaces to be minimal, preferring namespace-wrapped non-member functions over member functions. Essentially following Scott Meyer

8条回答
  •  执念已碎
    2021-02-05 01:11

    (I don't have time to write this up nicely, the following's a 5 minute brain dump which doubtless can be ripped apart at various trival levels, but please address the concepts and general thrust.)

    I have considerable sympathy for the position taken by Jonathan Grynspan, but want to say a bit more about it than can reasonably be done in comments.

    First - a "well said" to Alf Steinbach, who chipped in with "It's only over-simplified caricatures of their viewpoints that might seem to be in conflict. For what it's worth I don't agree with Scott Meyers on this matter; as I see it he's over-generalizing here, or he was."

    Scott, Herb etc. were making these points when few people understood the trade-offs or alternatives, and they did so with disproportionate strength. Some nagging hassles people had during evolution of code were analysed and a new design approach addressing those issues was rationally derived. Let's return to the question of whether there were downsides later, but first - worth saying that the pain in question was typically small and infrequent: non-member functions are just one small aspect of designing reusable code, and in enterprise scale systems I've worked on simply writing the same kind of code you'd have put into a member function as a non-member is rarely enough to make the non-members reusable. It's pretty rare for them to even express algorithms that are both complex enough to be worth reusing and yet not tightly bound to the specific of the class they were designed for, that being weird enough that it's practically inconceivable some other class will happen along supporting the same operations and semantics. Often, you also need to template arguments, or introduce a base class to abstract the set of operations required. Both have significant implications in terms of performance, being inline vs out-of-line, client-code recompilation.

    That said, there's often less code changes and impact study required when changing implementation if operations have been implementing in terms of a public interface, and being a non-friend non-member systematically enforces that. Occasionally though, it makes the initial implementation more verbose or in some other way less desirable and maintainble.

    But, as a litmus test - how many of these non-member functions sit in the same header as the only class for which they're currently applicable? How many want to abstract their arguments via templates (which means inlining, compilation dependencies) or base classes (virtual function overheads) to allow reuse? Both discourage people from seeing them as reusable, but when not the case, the operations available on a class are delocalised, which can frustrate developers perception of a system: the develop often has to work out for themselves the rather disappointing fact that - "oh - that will only work for class X".

    Bottom line: most member functions aren't potentially reusable. Much corporate code isn't broken into clean algorithm versus data with potential for reuse of the former. That kind of division just isn't required or useful or conceivably useful 20 years down the road. It's much the same as get/set methods - they're needed at certain API boundaries, but can constitute needless verbosity when ownership and use of the code is localised.

    Personally, I don't have an all or nothing approach to this, but decide what to make a member function or non-member based on whether there's any likely benefit to either, potential reusability versus locality of interface.

提交回复
热议问题