Delphi – we use classes rather than records, or vice versa

classdelphirecord

I've been using Delphi for quite some time now, but rather than coming from a CS background I have learnt "on the job" – mostly from my Boss, and augmented by bits and pieces picked up from the web, users guides, examples, etc.

Now my boss is old school, started programming using Pascal, and hasn't necessarily kept up-to-date with the latest changes to Delphi.

Just recently I've been wondering whether one of our core techniques is "wrong".

Most of our applications interface with MySQL. In general we will create a record with a structure to store data read from the DB, and these records will be stored in a TList. Generally we will have a unit that defines the various records that we have in an application, and the functions and procedures that seed and read the records. We don't use record procedures such as outlined here

After reviewing some examples I've started wondering whether we'd be better off using classes rather than records, but I'm having difficulty finding strong guidance either way.

The sort of thing that we are dealing with would be User information: Names, DOB, Events, Event Types. Or Timesheet information: Hours, Jobs, etc…

Best Answer

The big difference is that records are value types and classes are reference types. In a nutshell what this means is that:

For a value type, when you use assignment, a := b, a copy is made. There are two distinct instances, a and b.
For a reference type, when you use assignment, a := b, both variables refer to the same instance. There is only one instance.

The main consequence of this is what happens when you write a.Field := 42. For a record, the value type, the assignment a.Field changes the value of the member in a, but not in b. That's because a and b are different instances. But for a class, since a and b both refer to the same instance, then after executing a.Field := 42 you are safe to assert that b.Field = 42.

There's no hard and fast rule that says that you should always use value types, or always use reference types. Both have their place. In some situations, it will be preferable to use one, and in other situations it will be preferable to use the other. Essentially the decision always comes down to a decision on what you want the assignment operator to mean.

You have an existing code base, and presumably programmers familiar with it, that has made particular choices. Unless you have a compelling reason to switch to using reference types, making the change will almost certainly lead to defects. And defects both in the existing code (switch to reference type changes meaning of assignment operator), and in code you write in the future (you and your colleagues have developed intuition as to meaning of assignment operator in specific contexts, and that intuition will break if you switch).

What's more, you state that your types do not use methods. A type that consists only of data, and has no methods associated with it is very likely best represented by a value type. I cannot say that for sure, but my instincts tell me that the original developers made the right choice.

Short Answer

Use $this to refer to the current object. Use self to refer to the current class. In other words, use $this->member for non-static members, use self::$member for static members.

Full Answer

Here is an example of correct usage of $this and self for non-static and static member variables:

<?php
class X {
    private $non_static_member = 1;
    private static $static_member = 2;

    function __construct() {
        echo $this->non_static_member . ' '
           . self::$static_member;
    }
}

new X();
?>

Here is an example of incorrect usage of $this and self for non-static and static member variables:

<?php
class X {
    private $non_static_member = 1;
    private static $static_member = 2;

    function __construct() {
        echo self::$non_static_member . ' '
           . $this->static_member;
    }
}

new X();
?>

Here is an example of polymorphism with $this for member functions:

<?php
class X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'X::foo()';
    }

    function bar() {
        $this->foo();
    }
}

class Y extends X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'Y::foo()';
    }
}

$x = new Y();
$x->bar();
?>

Here is an example of suppressing polymorphic behaviour by using self for member functions:

<?php
class X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'X::foo()';
    }

    function bar() {
        self::foo();
    }
}

class Y extends X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'Y::foo()';
    }
}

$x = new Y();
$x->bar();
?>

The idea is that $this->foo() calls the foo() member function of whatever is the exact type of the current object. If the object is of type X, it thus calls X::foo(). If the object is of type Y, it calls Y::foo(). But with self::foo(), X::foo() is always called.

From http://www.phpbuilder.com/board/showthread.php?t=10354489:

By http://board.phpbuilder.com/member.php?145249-laserlight

Best Answer

Related Solutions

C++ – When should you use a class vs a struct in C++

Php – When should I use ‘self’ over ‘$this’

Short Answer

Full Answer

Related Topic