Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed"

Posted by Nicolas Repiquet on Programmers See other posts from Programmers or by Nicolas Repiquet
Published on 2012-11-21T14:58:14Z Indexed on 2012/11/21 17:15 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 266

After 10+ years of java/c# programming, I find myself creating either:

  • abstract classes: contract not meant to be instantiated as-is.
  • final/sealed classes: implementation not meant to serve as base class to something else.

I can't think of any situation where a simple "class" (i.e. neither abstract nor final/sealed) would be "wise programming".

Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed" ?

EDIT

This great article explains my concerns far better than I can.

© Programmers or respective owner

Related posts about object-oriented

Related posts about programming-practices