We Keep Coding

(Regular Class + interface) vs Abstract class

I recently encountered a question on abstract class.
Functionality of Abstract classes can be achieved by using combination of (Regular class with Protected Constructor + an interface).
What is the benefit of using Abstract Class over (Regular class with protected constructor + interface).
IMHO, Purpose of Abstract class to have common feature that needs to be available across the class hierarchy. It can pose restriction on sub-classes to implement certain features by Abstract methods. It can allow Sub-Classes to override the common behavior.
Abstract Class doesn't serve a purpose of as concrete object. So, It doesn't allow to instantiate the abstract class.
However,We can achieve same thing using Regular Class + interface.
Mark Regular Class constructor as protected, So object can't be created alone
provide default implementation of common features and mark them virtual in case if they need to be overridden by sub class.
Use interface to force sub-classes to implement certain features.
So, Is there any extra feature which Abstract class offer?
I could not think of any other. Interviewers was trying to know what other benefits Abstract class have over Regular Class with protected constructor + interface.

A lot of good reasons. Let's start with an unambiguous one:
public abstract class Smell
{
public abstract string GetAdjective();
public string GetDescription()
{
return "I smell " + GetAdjective();
}
}
public class NastySmell : Smell
{
public override string GetAdjective() { return "really nasty"; }
}
Pretty simple. The abstract class has a function, GetDescription - which relies on the presence of an abstract method GetAdjective.
How could you do this with ProtectedConstructor+Interface? You can't have Smell implement the interface (for lots of reasons, but a big one being that any derived classes would also inherit the implementation and wouldn't be required to implement anything new) - but that means that it's function can't refer to the method:
public interface SmellInterface
{
string GetAdjective();
}
public class Smell
{
protected Smell() { }
public string GetDescription()
{
// how do I call GetAdjective here? I have no reference to it!
}
}
But here's another, even more compelling reason:
public abstract class SomeFancyClass
{
protected string name;
protected string server;
protected abstract string implementer { get; }
public string Generate()
{
if (name == "something")
HandleGlobally(name);
else
HandleSpecifically(name);
}
public void HandleGlobally(string server)
{
// code
}
public abstract void HandleSpecifically(string server);
}
... if you make this class a combo ProtectedConstructorClass + Interface, you split up code into two separate spots - and suddenly, you have to look through two halves to get the full picture of what's going on!
public interface AbstractHalf
{
// data property of 'implementer'
// method of 'HandleSpecifically()
}
public class NonabstractHalf
{
// data fields of 'name' and 'server'
// methods of 'Generate()' and 'HandleGlobally'
}
... why would you want to do this? Your class is a distinct, logical entity. Why would you split it up into two separate parts: the non-abstract versus the abstract? It'd just make it harder to read and troubleshoot. And it'd get worse, the more code and abstract declarations were made in the class.

The main benefit of the abstract class is to force the developer to create a subclass that inherits from the abstract class in order to use base/shared functionality and fields.
You cannot directly new-up an abstract class. You can new-up a regular class + interface, and you are not forced to inherit or override anything in the base.
With an abstract class, you can reduce the number of files - i.e. no interfaces, but most folks would probably like to keep those for registration with an IoC container and dependency injection.

One thing that I can think of is that by using an abstract class you can force a specific implementation simply by not marking a method or property as virtual, while using an interface you can't prevent classes from implementing the interface but not derive from your base class.
Another benefit of using an abstract class is that you can simply add functionality to your abstract class without having to worry about having all your derived classes implementations - again, since you can't prevent a class from implementing an interface without deriving from your base class.
Also, an abstract class can have protected fields, methods, events etc', but an interface can't.
It all boils down to the fact that you can't force classes that implement your interface to derive from your "regular" base class.

First of all, there is many questions and answers about differences between Abstract Class and Interfaces like: this. There are a lot of remarkable answers. But most of them are about programming and syntax.
I want to look from Design Perspective:
I think that Abstract Class can not play the Role of Interface (+ Regular Class)
in Software Design.
Abstract Class:
The main goal of Abstract Class is Abstraction Principle. To overcome this complexity, Abstract classes are used to make Hierarchies in similar looking classes. All classes in the hierarchy are extending base classes functionalities and extending types of base classes.
Interface:
However, Interfaces are used for Interactions between classes. These classes can be similar or not. They can be from different hierarchies and different types.
Also, they are huge difference between inheriting from a class (even Abstract class) and implementing an interface. Interfaces are not TYPES. They are shared boundary across which two or more separate components of a computer system exchange information.

How is it possible to create an object from the abstract class?

We know that the Array class in c# is abstract.
But the static CreateInstance method of this class returns an object of the Array class.
How is it possible?

Description
No, you cant create an instance of an abstract class.
MSDN: Abstract classes are closely related to interfaces. They are classes that cannot be instantiated, and are frequently either partially implemented, or not at all implemented. One key difference between abstract classes and interfaces is that a class may implement an unlimited number of interfaces, but may inherit from only one abstract (or any other kind of) class. A class that is derived from an abstract class may still implement interfaces. Abstract classes are useful when creating components because they allow you specify an invariant level of functionality in some methods, but leave the implementation of other methods until a specific implementation of that class is needed. They also version well, because if additional functionality is needed in derived classes, it can be added to the base class without breaking code.
More Information
MSDN - Abstract Classes

It's a static factory method that returns an instance of array. this example creates an array of length 10 for integer value types.
System.Array myIntArray = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(int),10);
This should give you some more detail http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zb3cfh7k.aspx

The various overloads of the method Array.CreateInstance() are typed as returning Array, which indeed is an abstract class. But the type of the object they return is not directly Array, it's some type that inherits from Array (what type exactly depends on the overload used and the parameters you pass in).
For example:
Array a = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(int), 10); //create some array
Type type = a.GetType(); // type is int[], which is not abstract
Type baseType = type.BaseType; // baseType is Array
Basically, it's the same principle like the following factory method:
abstract class Animal
{
public static Animal CreateInstance(AnimalType animalType)
{
if (animalType == AnimalType.Cat)
return new Cat();
if (animalType == AnimalType.Dog)
return new Dog();
// etc.
}
}
Here, Animal is an abstract base type, Cat and Dog are concrete types that inherit from Animal and animalType tells us which type should the method return.
Now, arrays are treated specially in several ways in .Net (for example, there are IL instructions specifically for dealing with arrays). But they are not an exception in the type system (except, maybe for array covariance).

Array seems to be a special case of abstract class. From what I've read in Documentation I'd suggest that Array creation and functions are somehow handled internally in .NET Framework code - most probably extensively using native code for better performance results. I think that's why this class have been made abstract.
I'd be glad if someone more knowledgable of .NET Framework internals can improve my answer.

I think the best way to relate to this situation is by considering a method that returns you instance of an interface!!!
Well, you know that we can not create instance of an interface, but internally a method may know about a class implementing that interface and return instance of that class.

namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Circle : Shape
{
public override void Draw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Draw a Circle");
}
}
public abstract class Shape
{
public abstract void Draw();
}
}
You can do like this
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Shape v;
v = new Circle();
v.Draw();
}
}

Cannot create an instance of the abstract class or interface

I'm not familiar on using abstract class.
I'm trying to call a abstract class and get this error Cannot create an instance of the abstract class or interface and I already research this error but I'm really confused on this.
Here's my code:
string B1String;
while ((B1String = OasisFile.ReadLine()) != null)
{
Questions_Base oQuestions_Base = new Questions_Base(); // error here
oQuestions_Base.Import(B1String);
}
Please advice me.. thanks!

The purpose of an abstract class it to serve as part of a class hierarchy where more-derived classes share some common implementation.
If you have a flight simulator, you might define an abstract class ThingsThatFly that implements some properties (air speed, altitude, heading) and methods (TakeOff(), Land()) that all flying things have in common, but would be declared abstract because ThingsThatFly is an abstraction of all concrete things that fly. You could certainly have classes inbetween as well, for example Cessna172 could inherit from Airplane that inherits from ThingsThatFly. You would do that if all airplanes have some common implementation that e.g. birds don't have (for example, a Fuel Remaining property).
You would then have a number of concrete (= real life) things that fly like a Cessna 172, a Space Shuttle and a Duck. Each of those would be a concrete class that derives from ThingsThatFly
This is different than having the concrete classes implement an interface such as IThingsThatFly in that the abstract class provides not only a definition of the properties and methods that are expected, but also provides a (hopefully useful) implementation of those properties and methods.

An Abstract class can only be inherited.
public class CustomClass : Questions_Base {
}
Here's a link all about abstract classes and how to use them.

You cant create an instance of an abstract class.
You need to define a concrete class that inherits the abstract class, and create an instance of that.

Abstract class is made to be overriden by Derived class. If you have to have Abstract class, first create s Derived class from it and use Derived class contructor.
If it's not important, just remove abstract word from Questions_Base class declaration, so making that non abstract one. Also because in code provided I don't see any abstract member, so may this one is correct choice.
Regards.

An abstract class cannot be instantiated. You must provide an implementation for the class.
abstract class Animal
{
public abstract void Speak() { }
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
public override void Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof");
}
}
See MSDN on abstract for more information

From the documentation: "The abstract keyword enables you to create classes and class members that are incomplete and must be implemented in a derived class."
The purpose of using abstract is exactly to prevent instantiation, because you only created the class to use as a base class and never want an instance created.
More here.

An abstract class is one which MUST be inherited.
It falls somewhere between an Interface, which defines only the interface that a class must implement and no implementation code and a class that you can create an instance of which defines both the interface and the implementation code. There are several abstract classes in the .NET framework such as CollectionBase. You cannot create an instance of CollectionBase, it is intended for you to create a class that inherits from it and extends it's capabilities.
You should simpley be able to remove the kwy work "abstract" from your class definition of Questions_Base or create a new class definition that inherits from it.

Abstract classes, marked by the keyword abstract in the class definition, are typically used to define a base class in the hierarchy. What's special about them, is that you can't create an instance of them - if you try, you will get a compile error. Instead, you have to subclass them, as taught in the chapter on inheritance, and create an instance of your subclass. So when do you need an abstract class? It really depends on what you do. To be honest, you can go a long way without needing an abstract class, but they are great for specific things, like frameworks, which is why you will find quite a bit of abstract classes within the .NET framework it self. A good rule of thumb is that the name actually makes really good sense - abstract classes are very often, if not always, used to describe something abstract, something that is more of a concept than a real thing.

abstract method use vs regular methods

I would like to know the difference between two conventions:
Creating an abstract base class with an abstract method
which will be implemented later on the derived classes.
Creating an abstract base class without abstract methods
but adding the relevant method later on the level of the derived classes.
What is the difference?

Much like interfaces, abstract classes are designed to express a set of known operations for your types. Unlike interfaces however, abstract classes allow you to implement common/shared functionality that may be used by any derived type. E.g.:
public abstract class LoggerBase
{
public abstract void Write(object item);
protected virtual object FormatObject(object item)
{
return item;
}
}
In this really basic example above, I've essentially done two things:
Defined a contract that my derived types will conform to.
Provides some default functionality that could be overriden if required.
Given that I know that any derived type of LoggerBase will have a Write method, I can call that. The equivalent of the above as an interface could be:
public interface ILogger
{
void Write(object item);
}
As an abstract class, I can provide an additional service FormatObject which can optionally be overriden, say if I was writing a ConsoleLogger, e.g.:
public class ConsoleLogger : LoggerBase
{
public override void Write(object item)
{
Console.WriteLine(FormatObject(item));
}
}
By marking the FormatObject method as virtual, it means I can provide a shared implementation. I can also override it:
public class ConsoleLogger : LoggerBase
{
public override void Write(object item)
{
Console.WriteLine(FormatObject(item));
}
protected override object FormatObject(object item)
{
return item.ToString().ToUpper();
}
}
So, the key parts are:
abstract classes must be inherited.
abstract methods must be implemented in derived types.
virtual methods can be overriden in derived types.
In the second scenario, because you wouldn't be adding the functionality to the abstract base class, you couldn't call that method when dealing with an instance of the base class directly. E.g., if I implemented ConsoleLogger.WriteSomethingElse, I couldn't call it from LoggerBase.WriteSomethingElse.

The idea of putting abstract methods in a base class and then implementing them in subclasses is that you can then use the parent type instead of any specific subclass. For example say you want to sort an array. You can define the base class to be something like
abstract class Sorter {
public abstract Array sort(Array arr);
}
Then you can implement various algorithms such as quicksort, mergesort, heapsort in subclasses.
class QuickSorter {
public Array sort(Array arr) { ... }
}
class MergeSorter {
public Array sort(Array arr) { ... }
}
You create a sorting object by choosing an algorithm,
Sorter sorter = QuickSorter();
Now you can pass sorter around, without exposing the fact that under the hood it's a quicksort. To sort an array you say
Array sortedArray = sorter.sort(someArray);
In this way the details of the implementation (which algorithm you use) are decoupled from the interface to the object (the fact that it sorts an array).
One concrete advantage is that if at some point you want a different sorting algorithm then you can change QuickSort() to say MergeSort in this single line, without having to change it anywhere else. If you don't include a sort() method in the parent, you have to downcast to QuickSorter whenever calling sort(), and then changing the algorithm will be more difficult.

In the case 1) you can access those methods from the abstract base type without knowing the exact type (abstract methods are virtual methods).
The point of the abstract classes is usually to define some contract on the base class which is then implemented by the dervied classes (and in this context it is important to recognize that interfaces are sort of "pure abstract classes").

Uhm, well, the difference is that the base class would know about the former, and not about the latter.
In other words, with an abstract method in the base class, you can write code in other methods in the base class that call that abstract method.
Obviously, if the base class doesn't have those methods... you can't call them...

An abstract function can have no functionality. You're basically saying, any child class MUST give their own version of this method, however it's too general to even try to implement in the parent class. A virtual function, is basically saying look, here's the functionality that may or may not be good enough for the child class. So if it is good enough, use this method, if not, then override me, and provide your own functionality...
And of course, if you override a virtual method, you can always refer to the parent method by calling base.myVirtualMethod()

Okay, when you see a method like this:
A.Foo();
What you really have (behind the scenes) is a signature like this.
Foo(A x);
And when you call A.Foo() you're really calling Foo(this) where this is a reference to an object of type A.
Now, sometimes you'd like to have Foo(A|B|C|D...) where Foo is a method that can take either a type A, or B, or C, or D. But you don't want to worry about what type you're passing, you just want it to do something different based on the type that was passed in. Abstract methods let you do that, that's their only purpose.

Do generic classes have a base class?

I would like to pass a generic interface to a function:
private I<T> CreateStubRepository<T, I >()
where I : aGenericBaseClass
So i was wondering if generic interfaces implement a base class or specific interface?
I know by using reflection you can test if it is a generic class but I dont see that helping me

Well. What's the point of forcing the usage of any interface? I really do not get it (or your question).
You should more likely do something like this:
public interface IMyRepository<T>
{
}
public class Repository<T> : IMyRepository<T>
{
}
private IMyRepository<TEntity> CreateStubRepository<TEntity>()
{
return new Repository<TEntity>();
}
var repos = CreateStubRepository<User>();
Update
thanks for your answer but thats not what I am asking. What I want to know is does a class that implements a generic interface have a base class or does it inherit from an interface? I dont want to force any interface its more a question of is the object passed generic
Classes do not inherit interfaces. They implement them. The different is subtle but important.
A class can only inherit another class. This means that if you do not specify that a class inherits from another it will still inherit from object. And that wont change no matter how many interfaces a class implement.
class MyClass : ICoolInterface // inherits object
class MyList : ArrayList, ISomeInterface // inherits ArrayList
class MyGenericList<T> : IList<T> // inherits object.

Generic or non-generic classes can implement or inherit from generic or non-generic interfaces and classes. The only limitation is that the full type of any interface/class implemented/inherited from must be discernible given the full type of the class doing the implementing or inheriting. For example, a Foo<Bar> might inherit from FooBase and implement IDisposable; a FnordDuffleBag might inherit from DuffleBag<Fnord> and implement IReachInto<Fnord>.

Thanks for all the comments I think i was going in the wrong direction, What I was hoping for was that when I applied to a class the framework would know that it inherited from a base class or interface of say aGenericItemBaseClass before it constructed the class at runtime.
Yes I know that I can create a generic class with type parameters and use that but thats not what I was asking (although you may have got that impression from my posting).
At runtime I know that when using reflection I can determine if a class is generic by calling : IsGenericType which returns true if a type is generic.
So what I wanted to know which may have been explained poorly is, when using template types is there anyway to determine if that type is a generic type? It appears the answer is No the IL interperates the class as generic not the compiler.