Can I define Polymorphism like this.

Question

1.00/5 (2 votes)

See more:

I have recently understood the concept of Polymorphism in OOP. So, I defined it in my own words but wanted to ask that "Is it correct". We all know that no definition can be absolutely correct.

Polymorphism can be defined as "Common Interface among instances of classes but traits for each instance can vary keeping the interface same".

:)

Posted 15-Dec-14 9:17am

Shaharyaar

Updated 15-Dec-14 9:26am

v2

Add a Solution

Comments

Maciej Los 15-Dec-14 15:18pm

What's an issue?

Shaharyaar 15-Dec-14 15:32pm

I have read different type of definitions regarding polymorphism. Someone defined it as "Ability of Object to respond to the same message with different answers".
While some say that "Methods or interface is building block in concept of Polymorphism". So, should I go to the responding of Objects or to the Interface?

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 1:43am

You are trying to replace understanding with words. It's useless.
—SA

Tomas Takac 15-Dec-14 15:23pm

Good for you. I still remember my first time with polymorphism. Those were the days...

PIEBALDconsult 15-Dec-14 15:38pm

Please don't.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 1:24am

There is no such thing as verbal knowledge.
—SA

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter · Answer 1 · 2014-12-15T09:47:00

Solution 1

The concept - more to say theory - of polymorphism[^] in CS is well defined (including OOP) and there is not much to debate about. The differences may come from different level/type of implementation in different languages...
Your phrase shows me that you only take in count virtual methods - that's only one kind of polymorphism...

Posted 15-Dec-14 9:47am

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 1:54am

Your statement "not much to debate" is very questionable. You would be surprised, but when I looked at the Wikipedia article you referenced, I found that it was completely re-written, compared to the last time I looked at it; and at that time, this article was complete gibberish. Good riddance. So far, I can see some idiotic explanations of polymorphism involving mythical "compile-time polymorphism", something you can also see in some CodeProject answers.

I don't know what do you mean my "other kinds" of polymorphism, but polymorphism based on interfaces fundamentally differs from the polymorphism based on virtual methods, due to multiple inheritance of interfaces and (in .NET) the ability to implement interfaces in value types (struct). Also we can discuss polymorphism based on messages (like in Smalltalk). I would also considered polymorphism based on scripting: the name of the method is resolved at the call, so it creates similar effect...

So, there is enough to debate. With the OP's question the situation is different: it looks like OP goes in anti-scientific way: trying to play with words instead of understanding.

—SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Dec-14 2:02am

By "other kinds" I mean, inheritance, method override and so - as I understood the sentence of OP he focused only on virtual methods...
"debate" - I mean that the fundamentals are clear (or should be for anyone who had CS 101) and the Wikipedia article lay them out in a good manner (I didn't know of previous versions and picked the article after reading it). I do not refer to wrong answers - for me it is no debate, but wrong answer only...
On the other hand I would like some debate about how to extend OOP (and programming languages of non OOP too) with other kinds of polymorphism...

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 2:42am

I understand that you did not refer to anything wrong. I just say that this change is indicative. It's a "philosophical" question, if it is debatable or not, the question is: debatable among who... :-)

Anyway, you did not name more than one kind of polymorphism. Inheritance and override cannot be considered as something different and independent; they are not equal components: inheritance is one of the prerequisites to override...

—SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Dec-14 2:55am

I meant method overLOAD of course...

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 3:01am

And "overload" are not related to polymorphism at all. However, it is related to one of the myths of polymorphism. Functionally, "overloading" is nothing, this is a purely syntactic thing which does not effect any behaviors whatsoever. Bad term, actually: nothing is "overloaded", because nothing is "loaded".
—SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Dec-14 3:11am

int Add (int i1, int i2) { return(i1 + 12) }
double Add (double d1, double d2) { return(d1 + d2) }
string Add (string s1, string s2) { return(strcat(s1 + s2)) }
This IS polymorphism (one kind at least).

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 3:23am

How? What set of what objects is polymorphic? What is its common interface (in wide sense of the word interface, common feature to be used to deal with the object without using dynamic typing)? And so on...

However, it depends on understanding of the word "polymorphism". If your understanding comes from the word's etymology (something of common genus taking different forms), it could be called so. But from the programming semantic point of view, "kinds" I listed are related to each other, and your sample is unrelated to then. I would call it non-productive classification, something like "reptiles" (do you know that the concept of "reptiles" has been removed from modern taxonomy as paraphyletic?). Classification based on linguistic similarity is counter-productive; in this case, it has no value for computer science; and it does not help to understand things, only brings confusion.

—SA

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 3:25am

By the way, the mere fact of our discussion is yet another evidence of controversy and a room for debates on this topic. :-)
—SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Dec-14 3:41am

I noticed that we have a debate :-)
It is clear that we had different tutors on polymorphism...
When I learned about the topic we differentiated between compile-time (static) and run-time polymorphism...
We have learned that function overload (as in the previous sample) is a compile-time polymorphism, as you can call Add method of the same class with different parameters and that will force the compiler to choose the right Add (in dynamically typed languages it can be even better mess)...

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Dec-14 10:06am

Tutors? Are you kidding? Do you look like one who could have a tutor?...
—SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Dec-14 10:09am

I think something went wrong with my English here :-)...I do not understand you...