Why use base class pointers for derived classes

Question

class base{
    .....
    virtual void function1();
    virtual void function2();
};

class derived::public base{
    int function1();
    int function2();
};

int main()
{
    derived d;
    base *b = &d;
    int k = b->function1() // Why use this instead of the following line?
    int k = d.function1(); // With this, the need for virtual functions is gone, right?

}

I am not a CompSci engineer and I would like to know this. Why use virtual functions if we can avoid base class pointers?

Solution 1

The power of polymorphism isn't really apparent in your simple example, but if you extend it a bit it might become clearer.

class vehicle{
      .....
      virtual int getEmission();
 }

 class car : public vehicle{
      int getEmission();
 }

 class bus : public vehicle{
      int getEmission();
 }

 int main()
 {
      car a;
      car b;
      car c;
      bus d;
      bus e;

      vehicle *traffic[]={&a,&b,&c,&d,&e};

      int totalEmission=0;

      for(int i=0;i<5;i++)
      {
          totalEmission+=traffic[i]->getEmission();
      }

 }

This lets you iterate through a list of pointers and have different methods get called depending on the underlying type. Basically it lets you write code where you don't need to know what the child type is at compile time, but the code will perform the right function anyway.

Solution 2

You're correct, if you have an object you don't need to refer to it via a pointer. You also don't need a virtual destructor when the object will be destroyed as the type it was created.

The utility comes when you get a pointer to an object from another piece of code, and you don't really know what the most derived type is. You can have two or more derived types built on the same base, and have a function that returns a pointer to the base type. Virtual functions will allow you to use the pointer without worrying about which derived type you're using, until it's time to destroy the object. The virtual destructor will destroy the object without you knowing which derived class it corresponds to.

Here's the simplest example of using virtual functions:

base *b = new derived;
b->function1();
delete b;

Solution 3

its to implement polymorphism. Unless you have base class pointer pointing to derived object you cannot have polymorphism here.

One of the key features of derived classes is that a pointer to a derived class is type-compatible with a pointer to its base class. Polymorphism is the art of taking advantage of this simple but powerful and versatile feature, that brings Object Oriented Methodologies to its full potential.

In C++, a special type/subtype relationship exists in which a base class pointer or a reference can address any of its derived class subtypes without programmer intervention. This ability to manipulate more than one type with a pointer or a reference to a base class is spoken of as polymorphism.

Subtype polymorphism allows us to write the kernel of our application independent of the individual types we wish to manipulate. Rather, we program the public interface of the base class of our abstraction through base class pointers and references. At run-time, the actual type being referenced is resolved and the appropriate instance of the public interface is invoked. The run-time resolution of the appropriate function to invoke is termed dynamic binding (by default, functions are resolved statically at compile-time). In C++, dynamic binding is supported through a mechanism referred to as class virtual functions. Subtype polymorphism through inheritance and dynamic binding provide the foundation for objectoriented programming

The primary benefit of an inheritance hierarchy is that we can program to the public interface of the abstract base class rather than to the individual types that form its inheritance hierarchy, in this way shielding our code from changes in that hierarchy. We define eval(), for example, as a public virtual function of the abstract Query base class. By writing code such as _rop->eval(); user code is shielded from the variety and volatility of our query language. This not only allows for the addition, revision, or removal of types without requiring changes to user programs, but frees the provider of a new query type from having to recode behavior or actions common to all types in the hierarchy itself. This is supported by two special characteristics of inheritance: polymorphism and dynamic binding. When we speak of polymorphism within C++, we primarily mean the ability of a pointer or a reference of a base class to address any of its derived classes. For example, if we define a nonmember function eval() as follows, // pquery can address any of the classes derived from Query void eval( const Query *pquery ) { pquery->eval(); } we can invoke it legally, passing in the address of an object of any of the four query types:

    int main() 
{ 
AndQuery aq;
 NotQuery notq; 
OrQuery *oq = new OrQuery; 
NameQuery nq( "Botticelli" ); // ok: each is derived from Query 
// compiler converts to base class automatically 
eval( &aq );
 eval( &notq ); 
eval( oq ); 
eval( &nq );
 } 

whereas an attempt to invoke eval() with the address of an object not derived from Query results in a compile-time error:

int main()
 { string name("Scooby-Doo" ); // error: string is not derived from Query 
eval( &name); 
}

Within eval(), the execution of pquery->eval(); must invoke the appropriate eval() virtual member function based on the actual class object pquery addresses. In the previous example, pquery in turn addresses an AndQuery object, a NotQuery object, an OrQuery object, and a NameQuery object. At each invocation point during the execution of our program, the actual class type addressed by pquery is determined, and the appropriate eval() instance is called. Dynamic binding is the mechanism through which this is accomplished. In the object-oriented paradigm, the programmer manipulates an unknown instance of a bound but infinite set of types. (The set of types is bound by its inheritance hierarchy. In theory, however, there is no limit to the depth and breadth of that hierarchy.) In C++ this is achieved through the manipulation of objects through base class pointers and references only. In the object-based paradigm, the programmer manipulates an instance of a fixed, singular type that is completely defined at the point of compilation. Although the polymorphic manipulation of an object requires that the object be accessed either through a pointer or a reference, the manipulation of a pointer or a reference in C++ does not in itself necessarily result in polymorphism. For example, consider

// no polymorphism 
  int *pi; 
// no language-supported polymorphism 
  void *pvi; 
// ok: pquery may address any Query derivation
  Query *pquery;

In C++, polymorphism exists only within individual class hierarchies. Pointers of type void* can be described as polymorphic, but they are without explicit language support — that is, they must be managed by the programmer through explicit casts and some form of discriminant that keeps track of the actual type being addressed.

Comments

[Rohit Vipin Mathews]

i think his question was why use base class pointers and not why virtual destructors

[Rohit Vipin Mathews]

the last part are from C++ primer! get that book and read into Polymorphism

[Garfield]

This is possibly one of the best examples for the use of virtual functions. Thanks!

[Yankee]

Brilliant answer, but when I already know I have to add the Emissions for all of these class objects, why can't I just manually create the objects for both 'car' and 'bus' and add them normally ? Why do I need the base class type pointer.

[Rajesh]

Suppose if we do not use virtual function, what is the benefit of using base class pointers to derived class?