Question

I understand what an abstract class is in OOP paradigm. Yeah an abstract class is an incomplete type, cannot be instantiated.

Subclasses of the abstract class can extend the superclass and so on, and call a method through using a base type variable. But that is what I don’t get.

I was reading the book, and the author said using a Superclass variable to reference a subclass and calling a common method calls the correct method. And yeah that’s true. For example this little code I wrote:

public class ObjectOne extends SuperObject {

    public String objectString()
    {
        return "objectString() of class ObjectOne\n" ;
    }
}



public class ObjectTwo extends SuperObject {

    public String objectString()
    {
        return "objectString() of class ObjectTwo\n" ;
    }
}


public class ObjectThree extends SuperObject {

    public String objectString()
    {
        return "objectString() of class ObjectThree\n" ;
    }
}


public class SuperObject {
    public String objectString()
    {
        return "SuperObject" ;      
    }
}

    import static java.lang.System.out ;
public class ControlClass {

    public static void main(String[] args)
    {
        SuperObject [] arr = {new ObjectOne(), new ObjectTwo(), new ObjectThree()} ;

        for(SuperObject elem:arr)
        {
            out.println(elem.objectString()) ;
        }
    }
}

Em, so when main executes the correct methods are called for the objects using just the reference type. My question is so what is the point of an abstract class? Polymorphism works regardless of whether the method or class is abstract.
Unlike C++, polymorphism works only when you specify it. For Java, it works apparently all the time.

So I guess the abstract keyword or abstract concept is just to complete the inheritance hierarchy, make incomplete types impossible to instantiate, or is to promote good OOP practice? Can someone clarify thanks.

Answer 1

I’m not sure you understand what an abstract class is, as none of the classes in your example are abstract, and nothing in there is an interface either. What you are doing is extending an instantiable class. Without the abstract keyword there is nothing to stop me doing:

SuperObject obj = new SuperObject();

I think a better example would be to illustrate how abstract classes are used. What they are commonly used to do is to provide a common method implementation. If a number of classes implement some interface, but all of them implement the same method in the same way using the same code, then what is commonly done is to create an abstract class that contains the common implementation, and get all of the concrete implementations to extend that class. This facilitates code reuse, and decreases the likelihood that one developer will change the common method implementation for one class, but forget the others. For example..

public class ObjectOne extends Thing {
  public String objectString()
  {
      return "objectString() of class ObjectOne\n" ;
  }
}

public class ObjectTwo extends Thing {
  public String objectString()
  {
    return "objectString() of class ObjectTwo\n" ;
  }
}

public class ObjectThree extends Thing {
  public String objectString()
  {
    return "objectString() of class ObjectThree\n" ;
  }
}

public abstract class Thing implements SuperObject {
  public String alwaysTheSame() {
    return "The same thing";
  }
}

public interface SuperObject {
  public String objectString();

  public String alwaysTheSame();
}

import static java.lang.System.out ;

public class ControlClass {

  public static void main(String[] args)
  {
    SuperObject [] arr = {new ObjectOne(), new ObjectTwo(), new ObjectThree()} ;

    for(SuperObject elem : arr)
    {
        out.println(elem.alwaysTheSame());
        out.println(elem.objectString()) ;
    }
  }
}

What we have done here is introduce an abstract class Thing, which provides a method implementation that is common to all 3 implementations of SuperObject (which is now an interface). This means we don’t have to write the same code again in three different places in order to to fully implement the SuperObject interface in each one of our concrete classes.

In addition to this, you can also extend non final classes. You may wish to do this in order to override the default behaviour of one or methods on the concrete class, or to decorate the the class with additional methods. Of course, when you are designing a class hierarchy from scratch you don’t stick concrete classes in it that then get extended by other classes, as it’s generally considered a bad code smell. However, few of us work with totally new written-from-scratch codebases, and must adapt an exiting codebase to new requirements. Extending a concrete class is one tool in the toolbox to do this.

EDIT: Misunderstood what the OP was asking, but the last paragraph above is relevant.