Improving on Constructors

Constructors, as they appear in mainstream object-oriented languages, have numerous issues. Directly allocating objects with constructors creates coupling, and since most languages cannot abstract over constructors, we must resort to techniques like Factory patterns or Dependency Injection to provide the abstraction.

These issues seem to be well understood (or at least well documented), so I thought I’d bring up a less dangerous but no less annoying issue: when I try to code in a mostly-functional style, the approach to construction in C++, Java and C# forces me to write way too much boilerplate.

For an example, Imagine I am defining some C# classes to represent a simple lambda-calculus AST:

class Exp { ... }
class Abs : Exp { ... }
class App : Exp { ... }
class Var : Exp { ... }

Immutable Objects

I’d like to work with objects that are immutable once constructed. That means that I will not expose their fields, and will expose only “getter” properties. If I’d like each Exp to have some information on its range in the source code (using a value type SourceRange) I might write a canonical Exp as:

public class Exp
    public Exp( SourceRange range )
        _range = range;

    public SourceRange Range { get { return _range; } }

    private SourceRange _range;

For an immutable class with a single attribute, I’ve had to write a surprising amount of boilerplate. I’ve had to write the type of the attribute (SourceRange) three times, and variations on the name of the attribute (range, Range, _range) six times.

If I were using Scala, though, I could express the original intent quite compactly:

public class Exp( val Range : SourceRange )

This notation defines both a parameter to the default constructor of Exp and a read-only property Range that gives access to the value passed into the constructor.

Derived Classes

So it appears that Scala can eliminate our boilerplate in Exp, but what happens in our derived classes? Starting with a canonical C# encoding again, here is Abs:

public class Abs : Exp
    public Abs( SourceRange range,
                string name,
                Exp body )
        : base( range )
        _name = name;
        _body = body;

    public string Name { get { return _name; } }
    public Exp Body { get { return _body; } }

    private string _name;
    private Exp _body;

The boilerplate for the new properties is the same as before. What is new, though, is that we are forced to re-state the attributes of the base class in our new constructor. While this seems like a relatively small annoyance at first, we end up having to repeat this boilerplate in each subclass we add. If the base class has a non-trivial number of attributes, this obviously gets proportionally worse.

In this case Scala doesn’t provide a solution to avoid this kind of boilerplate:

public class Abs( range : SourceRange,
                  val name : String,
                  val body : Exp )
    extends Exp(range)

Extending the Base Class

So what’s so bad about this per-subclass boilerplate? The dogmatic answer is that it is a violation of Once and Only Once. A more pragmatic answer arises if we need to alter or extend the base class.

Suppose we decide to add a Type attribute to Exp. This attribute might have a default value (e.g. null), so existing call sites that create expressions do not need to be updated. How much code do we have to edit to achieve this?

Adding the a new field and property to Exp is relatively easy, as is adding a new Exp constructor with an additional parameter. In addition, though, we’d have to update every subclass of Exp to include another constructor with the new parameter.

This is a serious compromise in modularity. If we are creating a class library used by other programmers or other organizations then we may not even have access to all subclasses. This means there are certain edits that we cannot make to the base class.

A Possible Compromise

If we sacrificed the goal of having immutable objects, we could use C# auto-generated properties to avoid the per-subclass boilerplate:

public class Exp
    public SourceRange Range { get; set; }

public class Abs : Exp
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public Exp Body { get; set; }

With this approach we would then use the property-based initialization syntax when constructing an instance:

var abs = new Abs{ Range = new SourceRange(...),
                   Name = "x",
                   Body = ... };

Adding a Type property to Exp could then be accomplished without affecting every subclass. Clients who create expressions could freely include the new parameter in their initializer lists.

There are two big downsides to this approach, though. The first is that we have sacrificed the immutability of our objects – every property has both a getter and a setter. The second is that clients can now create uninitialized or partially-initialized objects by forgetting to include any of the “required” attributes in their initializer.

You can decide for yourself whether that is an appropriate solution. I for one find it distasteful, and dislike that newer .NET technologies like WPF and XAML seem to be encouraging this style.

Doing Better

Ideally we’d have a solution that combines the declarative style and guaranteed initialization of the Scala approach with the easy extensibility of the C# automatic-property approach. It turns out that CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System) and its descendent Dylan already use a solution along these lines.

Casting our example into idiomatic Dylan, we would have:

define class <exp>
    constant slot range :: <source-range>, required-init-keyword: range:;
end class;

define class <abs> (<exp>)
    constant slot name :: <string>, required-init-keyword: name:;
    constant slot body :: <exp>, required-init-keyword: body:;
end class;

A user could then create an expression using the standard make function (the Dylan equivalent of the new operator in other languages):

let abs = make(<abs>,
               range: someRange,
               name: "x",
               body: ... );

Because Dylan and CLOS are dynamic languages, failure to provide all required parameters yields a runtime rather than compile-time error. Except for this, however, the Dylan approach provides exactly the combination of benefits described above.


Object initialization is a thorny issue in many modern object-orientated languages. In order to gain the benefits of both safety and extensibility, we should be willing to look at a wide variety of languages for inspiration.


In Defense of OldSpeak

My last post tried to make a case in favor of static typing based on the fact that it allows us to do overload resolution. At the time I hadn’t read this post on Gilad Bracha’s Newspeak blog. In the thread on another post, he summarized the sprit of this essay when he commented that:

“Static type based overloading is a truly bad idea, with no redeeming value whatsoever”

I’m not going to claim that I know language design better than Bracha. I will, however, disagree with this extreme position on overloading. If you haven’t read Bracha’s essay, please do so before you proceed…

Let’s first touch on the examples that Bracha used to illustrate his case. Some of these examples relate to legacy issues in Java, and are thus not inherent to languages with overloading. I’ll happily dismiss them since I don’t have to deal with Java.

The rest involve overloads with the following two properties:

  1. The methods are all defined within a single class
  2. The methods are specialized on types that are related by inheritance

I claim that it is the combination of these two properties that is the crux of the argument. If the types involved are not related by inheritance, the “gotcha” aspect of figuring out which overload will be called goes away. And because the methods are all defined in one class (by one programmer?) we can trivialize the cost associated with renaming one of the overloads, or of planning to avoid the situation altogether.

For this limited case – “(1) and (2)” – I actually buy the argument. Static overloading in this case doesn’t do what you want. But what Bracha neglects to mention is that a pure object-oriented message send doesn’t achieve the desired result either! What you want in this case is dispatch on the run-time types of multiple arguments, aka multiple dispatch, aka multimethods.

There are legitimate concerns with multimethods (which Bracha notes) as expressed in e.g. CLOS and Dylan. There are, however, other approaches that are more suitable for a new language. That is a discussion for another day.

Having ceded the argument in the “(1) and (2)” case, in favor of multimethods, that leaves us with the remaining cases, which Bracha didn’t directly address.

The “(1) but not (2)” case is harmless – there is no chance of ambiguity in dispatch. Multimethods subsume this case for overloading anyway, so I don’t think it is particularly useful to discuss.

The remaining cases must all deal with methods that weren’t defined within a single class. We might also presume, then, that we should consider the possibility that the methods involved were defined by different programmers, working at different organizations.

Suppose programmer A defines their Widget class version 1.0. Programmer B decides to use it as the base class for their SuperWidget. SuperWidget has extended Widget by adding a new message “doSomethingSuper” with semantics that are tied into B’s product.

Unbeknownst to B, though, A has been upgrading Widget for version 1.1 by adding their own “doSomethingSuper” method, with completely different semantics (after all, B doesn’t know about A’s product). If B tries to upgrade to the new version of Widget, then what happens?

In a language like Python or SmallTalk, SuperWidget will accidentally override the base class definition of “doSomethingSuper“. Now clients that try to use a SuperWidget as a Widget 1.1 will fail because SuperWidget responds to a message with an unexpected behavior.

If you try this same scenario out in C# and the Microsoft CLR, you’ll find that previously-compiled versions of SuperWidget keep working with Widget 1.1, and clients that use it as a Widget will have no problems. If you recompile SuperWidget after the upgrade, you will be told that your “doSomethingSuper” method might introduce an ambiguity – you will be forced to decorate it explicitly as either an override of the base-class method, or a new method that just happens to have the same name.

The secret that makes this technique work is – you guessed it – static overload resolution. This is exactly the opposite of Bracha’s claim about static overloading in his essay:

“This means that existing code breaks when you recompile, or does the wrong thing if you don’t”

In this case, however, it is the overloading-free languages which inhibit the modular extensibility of the system, and static overloading that makes it possible for another language to avoid the problem.

Overloading is generally not something we pursue, even when our languages support it. Instead, we simply recognize that it is something that arises inevitably when we develop large software systems that aggregate and extend components developed by other programmers and other organizations. The space of useful identifiers is just too small to avoid all conflicts.

Given this fact, I choose to use tools that recognize the inevitability of name conflicts and give me mechanisms for resolving them.