Relationship between multiple diamonds

[Immortal Nephi]

You may have heard diamond shape. You create one base class. One
base class has member functions and member variables. You create two
derived classes. All member functions and member variables from one
base class are inherited into two derived classes.

You want both derived classes to share member variables of the one
base class. You can do this way so you don't need keyword -- friend.
You can add virtual public One_Base_Class on both derived classes.
You need to create fourth derived class. Fourth derived class is
derived from both (two) derived classes. All four classes look like
diamond shape. It does the same what IOS looks like.

What happen if you want multiple diamonds? You can create two
diamonds. Then another class is dervied from both diamonds. You do
too many derived classes as long as more diamonds are related together
and very complex.

Finally, the last bottom class is derived from multiple diamond
classes. All member functions and member variables from the top base
class are inherited down to the last bottom class through multiple
diamonds.

What happen to a large vtable in the bottom class?. A large vtable
contains hundreds or thousands of member functions and hundreds of
member variables. You may want to define one pointer to member
function variable. Then pointer to member function variable can be
called to access thousands of member functions.

According to my test, only single pointer to member function variable
with thousands of member functions are much faster than sub-member
functions. Let's say that each main member functions (total 256 main
member functions) have 16 sub-member functions. Combined with main
member functions and sub-member functions are slow because it requires
extra overhead CPU time. Only single main member functons (total
4,096 main member functions) are faster.

Please let me know what you think about multiple diamonds. You know
what my writing means, but I do not need to provide sample source
code. It is easier to understand my post.

Nephi

 

[Salt_Peter]

You may have heard diamond shape. You create one base class. One
base class has member functions and member variables. You create two
derived classes. All member functions and member variables from one
base class are inherited into two derived classes.

You want both derived classes to share member variables of the one
base class. You can do this way so you don't need keyword -- friend.
You can add virtual public One_Base_Class on both derived classes.
You need to create fourth derived class. Fourth derived class is
derived from both (two) derived classes. All four classes look like
diamond shape. It does the same what IOS looks like.

What happen if you want multiple diamonds? You can create two
diamonds. Then another class is dervied from both diamonds. You do
too many derived classes as long as more diamonds are related together
and very complex.

Finally, the last bottom class is derived from multiple diamond
classes. All member functions and member variables from the top base
class are inherited down to the last bottom class through multiple
diamonds.

What happen to a large vtable in the bottom class?. A large vtable
contains hundreds or thousands of member functions and hundreds of
member variables. You may want to define one pointer to member
function variable. Then pointer to member function variable can be
called to access thousands of member functions.

According to my test, only single pointer to member function variable
with thousands of member functions are much faster than sub-member
functions. Let's say that each main member functions (total 256 main
member functions) have 16 sub-member functions. Combined with main
member functions and sub-member functions are slow because it requires
extra overhead CPU time. Only single main member functons (total
4,096 main member functions) are faster.

Please let me know what you think about multiple diamonds. You know
what my writing means, but I do not need to provide sample source
code. It is easier to understand my post.

Nephi

I fail to see your point. A diamond shaped inheritance scheme like

istream
/ \
ios_base - ios iostream
\ /
ostream

fits the bill since istream and ostream provide facilities to other
sections of the hierarchy (ifstream, istringstream and ofstream,
ostringstream respectively), iostream is but one of them. You describe
a design where the various corners of the diamonds are meant to serve
nothing but the final derived class.

A class with 256 member functions is grossly overburdened. And you
suggested 4096 member functions? If speed is such a concern, why store
pointers to member functions in the first place? Are you using
inheritance where you should be using composition?

The main reason why one should use inheritance hierarchies is for
reusability, maintainability and flexibility. Keep it simple. If your
idea is to write a complex program with 100K lines using one class and
4096 functions, then do it at your own peril. If thats your idea of
gaining speed, then i'll counter with 'buggy programs' don't run very
well at all. Without classes you lose type-checking. A few weeks after
you implement the design you'll find you can't even maintain it let
alone explain it. You'll do one tiny modification and the ship sinks.
You'll need 20 days instead of 20 minutes to add a tiny feature.
Customers don't like that.

 

[Immortal Nephi]

I fail to see your point. A diamond shaped inheritance scheme like

                 istream
               /         \
ios_base - ios             iostream
               \         /
                 ostream

You are right. I guess that you understand.

fits the bill since istream and ostream provide facilities to other
sections of the hierarchy (ifstream, istringstream and ofstream,
ostringstream respectively), iostream is but one of them. You describe
a design where the various corners of the diamonds are meant to serve
nothing but the final derived class.

Let me show you an example of multiple diamonds scheme. You will see
more than two inheritance.

A E M Q
/ \ / \ / \ / \
B C F G N O R S
\ / \ / \ / \ /
D H P T
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
I U
/ \ / \
J K V W
\ / \ /
L X
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Y

If you add virtual to each derived class like this "virtutal public
A...Y" You will be able to share and modify member variables in base
class when you invoke to call derived class' member function.

A class with 256 member functions is grossly overburdened. And you
suggested 4096 member functions? If speed is such a concern, why store
pointers to member functions in the first place? Are you using
inheritance where you should be using composition?

No, it is not composition. I talk about multiple diamond
inheritance. You always define "pointer to member function" variable
in the bottom of derived "class Y". You can see that each derived
class inherits member functions down to the bottom from the top. Each
derived class can have 10-100 member functions.

You can see that class Y receives all member functions from all
derived classes through inheritance. You can invoke to call pointer
to member function variable in the class Y before member function in
one of these derived class is in turn to be called.

You can have 4,096 or 32,768 or more member functions when your
project is getting too large. Each member function's memory address
is stored in a large vtable pointer.

The main reason why one should use inheritance hierarchies is for
reusability, maintainability and flexibility. Keep it simple. If your
idea is to write a complex program with 100K lines using one class and
4096 functions, then do it at your own peril. If thats your idea of
gaining speed, then i'll counter with 'buggy programs' don't run very
well at all. Without classes you lose type-checking. A few weeks after
you implement the design you'll find you can't even maintain it let
alone explain it. You'll do one tiny modification and the ship sinks.
You'll need 20 days instead of 20 minutes to add a tiny feature.
Customers don't like that.- Hide quoted text -

You are referring global variables and global functions, but you can
still use class when you declare static to both member variables and
member functions. You don't need type-checking unless your source
code is very simple when your writing code is very careful to be
tested without bugs.

You add too many derived classes. They gain more pounds. The ship is
too heavy with tons of derived classes before it sinks because of
overweight. How can you do maintainability?

Nephi