Open-closed principle and Java “final” modifier

Question

The open-closed principle states that \"Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification\".

However, J

Answer 1

Frankly I think the open/closed principle is more an anachronism than not. It sems from the 80s and 90s when OO frameworks were built on the principle that everything must inherit from something else and that everything should be subclassable.

This was most typified in UI frameworks of the era like MFC and Java Swing. In Swing, you have ridiculous inheritance where (iirc) button extends checkbox (or the other way around) giving one of them behaviour that isn't used (I think it's its the setDisabled() call on checkbox). Why do they share an ancestry? No reason other than, well, they had some methods in common.

These days composition is favoured over inheritance. Whereas Java allowed inheritance by default, .Net took the (more modern) approach of disallowing it by default, which I think is more correct (and more consistent with Josh Bloch's principles).

DI/IoC have also further made the case for composition.

Josh Bloch also points out that inheritance breaks encapsulation and gives some good examples of why. It's also been demonstrated that changing the behaviour of Java collections is more consistent if done by delegation rather than extending the classes.

Personally I largely view inheritance as little more than an implemntation detail these days.