Why do we need virtual and override?

[SuaveSteve]

I'm struggling to see what the point of virtual and override is when inheritance works without them. Both these snippets do the same thing:

Code: Select all

class A {

	void doThing() { 
        Console.printf("A");
    }

}


class B : A {

	void doThing() {
		Console.printf("B");
		super.doThing();
	}

}

Code: Select all

class A {

	virtual void doThing() { Console.printf("A"); }

}


class B : A {

	override void doThing() {
		Console.printf("B");
		super.doThing();
	}

}

[phantombeta]

These snippets don't do the same thing.
In the first snippet, you're shadowing the "doThing" function from A in B. Anything calling "doThing" with a pointer of type A will call A's version of doThing, even if the pointer points to an instance of B.
In the second snippet, you're actually overriding A's "doThing" function, and calling doThing with a pointer of type A will call the correct function if overridden.

As an example, try these two snippets:

Code: Select all

class Foo : Actor {
    override void PostBeginPlay () {
        asd ();
    }

    void asd () {
        Console.Printf ("aaa");
    }
}

class Bar : Foo {
    void asd () {
        Console.Printf ("bbb");
    }
}

Code: Select all

class Foo : Actor {
    override void PostBeginPlay () {
        asd ();
    }

    virtual void asd () {
        Console.Printf ("aaa");
    }
}

class Bar : Foo {
    override void asd () {
        Console.Printf ("bbb");
    }
}

Spawn "Foo", then spawn "Bar". With the first snippet, you'll get "aaa" with both, while with the second snippet, you'll get "aaa" when spawning Foo and "bbb" when spawning Bar.

[SuaveSteve]

I see. Am I correct in saying that ZScript went the route of C++ by having functions non-virtual by default instead of Java where they're virtual by default? And how is that useful?

[Chris]

I see. Am I correct in saying that ZScript went the route of C++ by having functions non-virtual by default instead of Java where they're virtual by default? And how is that useful?

Less overhead. A non-virtual member function is essentially just a normal function with an implicit 'this' pointer. It's invoked directly. A virtual member function is a function pointer in a vtable, which requires indirect memory accesses (and as minor as a memory access may be, they can very quickly add up, especially if it's hitting "cold" memory that's not in the cpu's cache).

[dpJudas]

It isn't just the saved memory access. When the function isn't virtual the compiler can inline more functions (*). A virtual function can't be inlined unless the compiler can determine that the object reference cannot possibly be a derived version of the class.

*) The compiler doesn't actually inline any functions right now, but that's besides the point.

[Graf Zahl]

Another point is programming safety. A virtual function can be overridden by a child class at will and you lose all control over the program flow because users can hook themselves into code they are not supposed to touch.

It's not as bad as Objective-C, though, where a program can replace any method at run time and wreak havoc. Virtual by default is fundamentally unsafe and mostly found in academic languages that unfortunately found their way into production environments.