HackerRank - Virtual Function Practice











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












This is just simple code to practice the use of virtual functions from a practice challenge in HackerRank. Could you give me some advice about the best practices and style?



This is just a simple exercise from HackerRank



#include <string>
#include <array>
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>

class Person {
protected:
std::string name;
int age;
public:
virtual void getdata() = 0;
virtual void putdata() const = 0;
};
class Student final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
std::array<int,6> marks;
int cur_id;
public:
Student(){
cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
for (auto &mark : marks) {
std::cin >> mark;
}
}
void putdata() const override{
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0) << " " << cur_id << std::endl;
}
};

class Professor final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
int publications;
int cur_id;

public:
Professor(){
cur_id = ++Professor::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
std::cin >> this->publications;
}
void putdata() const override {
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << publications << " " << cur_id << endl;
}
};


Code provided by the question (cannot be edited):



 int main(){
int n, val;
std::cin>>n; //The number of objects that is going to be created.
Person *per[n];

for(int i = 0;i < n;i++){

std::cin>>val;
if(val == 1){
// If val is 1 current object is of type Professor
per[i] = new Professor;

}
else per[i] = new Student; // Else the current object is of type Student

per[i]->getdata(); // Get the data from the user.

}

for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
per[i]->putdata(); // Print the required output for each object.

return 0;

}









share|improve this question
























  • (Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
    – greybeard
    Dec 19 '17 at 9:34








  • 3




    Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
    – Justin
    Dec 22 '17 at 23:40










  • @Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 9:18

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












This is just simple code to practice the use of virtual functions from a practice challenge in HackerRank. Could you give me some advice about the best practices and style?



This is just a simple exercise from HackerRank



#include <string>
#include <array>
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>

class Person {
protected:
std::string name;
int age;
public:
virtual void getdata() = 0;
virtual void putdata() const = 0;
};
class Student final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
std::array<int,6> marks;
int cur_id;
public:
Student(){
cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
for (auto &mark : marks) {
std::cin >> mark;
}
}
void putdata() const override{
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0) << " " << cur_id << std::endl;
}
};

class Professor final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
int publications;
int cur_id;

public:
Professor(){
cur_id = ++Professor::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
std::cin >> this->publications;
}
void putdata() const override {
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << publications << " " << cur_id << endl;
}
};


Code provided by the question (cannot be edited):



 int main(){
int n, val;
std::cin>>n; //The number of objects that is going to be created.
Person *per[n];

for(int i = 0;i < n;i++){

std::cin>>val;
if(val == 1){
// If val is 1 current object is of type Professor
per[i] = new Professor;

}
else per[i] = new Student; // Else the current object is of type Student

per[i]->getdata(); // Get the data from the user.

}

for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
per[i]->putdata(); // Print the required output for each object.

return 0;

}









share|improve this question
























  • (Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
    – greybeard
    Dec 19 '17 at 9:34








  • 3




    Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
    – Justin
    Dec 22 '17 at 23:40










  • @Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 9:18















up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











This is just simple code to practice the use of virtual functions from a practice challenge in HackerRank. Could you give me some advice about the best practices and style?



This is just a simple exercise from HackerRank



#include <string>
#include <array>
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>

class Person {
protected:
std::string name;
int age;
public:
virtual void getdata() = 0;
virtual void putdata() const = 0;
};
class Student final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
std::array<int,6> marks;
int cur_id;
public:
Student(){
cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
for (auto &mark : marks) {
std::cin >> mark;
}
}
void putdata() const override{
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0) << " " << cur_id << std::endl;
}
};

class Professor final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
int publications;
int cur_id;

public:
Professor(){
cur_id = ++Professor::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
std::cin >> this->publications;
}
void putdata() const override {
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << publications << " " << cur_id << endl;
}
};


Code provided by the question (cannot be edited):



 int main(){
int n, val;
std::cin>>n; //The number of objects that is going to be created.
Person *per[n];

for(int i = 0;i < n;i++){

std::cin>>val;
if(val == 1){
// If val is 1 current object is of type Professor
per[i] = new Professor;

}
else per[i] = new Student; // Else the current object is of type Student

per[i]->getdata(); // Get the data from the user.

}

for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
per[i]->putdata(); // Print the required output for each object.

return 0;

}









share|improve this question















This is just simple code to practice the use of virtual functions from a practice challenge in HackerRank. Could you give me some advice about the best practices and style?



This is just a simple exercise from HackerRank



#include <string>
#include <array>
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>

class Person {
protected:
std::string name;
int age;
public:
virtual void getdata() = 0;
virtual void putdata() const = 0;
};
class Student final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
std::array<int,6> marks;
int cur_id;
public:
Student(){
cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
for (auto &mark : marks) {
std::cin >> mark;
}
}
void putdata() const override{
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0) << " " << cur_id << std::endl;
}
};

class Professor final : public Person {
static inline int id_count = 0;
int publications;
int cur_id;

public:
Professor(){
cur_id = ++Professor::id_count;
}
void getdata() override {
std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;
std::cin >> this->publications;
}
void putdata() const override {
std::cout << name << " " << age << " " << publications << " " << cur_id << endl;
}
};


Code provided by the question (cannot be edited):



 int main(){
int n, val;
std::cin>>n; //The number of objects that is going to be created.
Person *per[n];

for(int i = 0;i < n;i++){

std::cin>>val;
if(val == 1){
// If val is 1 current object is of type Professor
per[i] = new Professor;

}
else per[i] = new Student; // Else the current object is of type Student

per[i]->getdata(); // Get the data from the user.

}

for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
per[i]->putdata(); // Print the required output for each object.

return 0;

}






c++






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 18 at 7:45

























asked Dec 19 '17 at 9:21









WooWapDaBug

362314




362314












  • (Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
    – greybeard
    Dec 19 '17 at 9:34








  • 3




    Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
    – Justin
    Dec 22 '17 at 23:40










  • @Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 9:18




















  • (Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
    – greybeard
    Dec 19 '17 at 9:34








  • 3




    Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
    – Justin
    Dec 22 '17 at 23:40










  • @Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 9:18


















(Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
– greybeard
Dec 19 '17 at 9:34






(Welcome to posting on CR!) To make contents not authored by you instantly identifiable, please make it a block quote: mark an use the "the “”/ block quote button" (or its keyboard short-cut) in the post editor or put > before each line (works with nested contents like code-blocks, too).
– greybeard
Dec 19 '17 at 9:34






3




3




Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
– Justin
Dec 22 '17 at 23:40




Wow. That uneditable snippet of code is terrible. It lacks spaces between operators. Has bad names n, val, per. Leaks memory without even a comment about it. Bad naming of the virtual functions getdata() and putdata(). When we see getfoo, we expect that it is a getter function, and doesn't modify state, and putfoo is expected to be some kind of setter function (setfoo is a more common name), which does modify state; instead, they do the opposite.
– Justin
Dec 22 '17 at 23:40












@Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
– WooWapDaBug
Dec 24 '17 at 9:18






@Justin hahaha that's good feedback, I also thought the same about the provided code!
– WooWapDaBug
Dec 24 '17 at 9:18












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted











  • Be consistent.

    You use a blank line to separate classes Student and Professor: Person and Studentdeserve no less. (Same goes for change in accessibility; alternatives to a blank line include (less) indent.)

  • Don't write, never present uncommented code.

    Use all machine/tool support you can get: have a look at doxygen.

  • make classes (and functions) final when further derivation/overriding is bound to break something, only.

  • Think of derivation as extension or specialisation.

    You declared common attributes for Person: try and do the same for behaviour, even if it is more cumbersome in C++ (& influenced languages) than in Simula: There, a virtual function gets to call inner - with common code before&after.

    In C++, I know no better than starting Derived::f() with Base::f();.

    In this example, getdata() & putdata() shouldn't be pure virtual:
    Person::getdata() should input name and age; Person::putdata() output them. We are stuck without a method to handle specialised output is complete imposing. One can define void putdata() const { std::cout << toString() << std::endl; } (with toString() facing the exact problem with cur_id "on the other side").


  • Avoid overly long lines.



    name + " " + std::to_string(age)
    + " " + std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0)
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id)


    is easier to read and probably works just as well as a one-liner.




(While this review has been received exceedingly friendly,

the following code misses the mark correct contemporary C++ by a mile.

(Hopefully closing in with revisions (incorporating advice from Edward's answer);

Having "fun" with IDEone - don't hold your breath.))



Shots from the hip:



/*! brief Person sporting common attributes
* and get/putdata().
*
* Attributes include name, age, and an in-subclass ID.
* getdata() reads from std::cin, starting with name&age;
* putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
*/
class Person {
protected:
// const int cur_id;
std::string name;
int age;
/*! terse human readable representation.
*/
virtual std::string toString() const {
return name + " " + std::to_string(age);
}
~Person(){}
public:
/*! read name&age from std::cin.
*/
virtual void getdata() {
std::cin >> name >> age;
}
/*! putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
*/
virtual void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const {
out << toString() << std::endl;
}
};

/*! Student adds marks for subjects to the common attributes.
*/
class Student : public Person {
const int cur_id;
// static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
std::array<int, 6> marks;
protected:
std::string toString() const override {
return Person::toString()
+ " " + std::to_string(
std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0))
+ " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
}
public:
static int id_count;// = 0;
Student() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
/*! read as Person from std::cin; add marks.
*/
void getdata() override {
Person::getdata();
for (auto &mark : marks)
std::cin >> mark;
}
};

/*! Professor adds a publication count to the common attributes.
*/
class Professor final : public Person {
const int cur_id;
// static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
int publications;
protected:
std::string toString() const override {
return Person::toString()
+ " " + std::to_string(publications)
+ " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
}
public:
static int id_count;// = 0;
Professor() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
/*! read as Person from std::cin; add publications.
*/
void getdata() override {
Person::getdata();
std::cin >> publications;
}
};

int Student::id_count = 0;
int Professor::id_count = 0;





share|improve this answer























  • (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
    – greybeard
    Dec 24 '17 at 10:43












  • Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 15:01










  • (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
    – greybeard
    Dec 25 '17 at 8:49


















up vote
6
down vote













It's unfortunate that we can't fix the provided code, as there is a lot more wrong with it than with your code, in my view. Because this is a learning exercise and because it may benefit others who read this later, I'm going to review both pieces of code, starting with the code you actually wrote.



Fix the bug



There is one instance in which endl is used without std:: namespace. It won't compile that way on my machine. In any case, see the next suggestion.



Don't use std::endl if you don't really need it



The difference betweeen std::endl and 'n' is that 'n' just emits a newline character, while std::endl actually flushes the stream. This can be time-consuming in a program with a lot of I/O and is rarely actually needed. It's best to only use std::endl when you have some good reason to flush the stream and it's not very often needed for simple programs such as this one. Avoiding the habit of using std::endl when 'n' will do will pay dividends in the future as you write more complex programs with more I/O and where performance needs to be maximized.



Understand inline



The inline specifier is new with C++17 and would allow one to, in this case, put the initialization of the member variable id_count within the header file, even if the header file is #included in multiple other files (technically translation units). In the context of the original code, there's not much real benefit to it, since there appears to be only one translation unit. Using C++11 (or C++14) syntax, one could simply omit the inline keyword and then write



int Student::id_count{0};


outside the class definition. Maybe you already knew all of that, but I think it's worthwhile clarifying what it means and how it works.



Prefer modern initializers for constructors



The constructor use the more modern initializer style rather than the old style you're currently using. Instead of this:



Student(){
cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
}


You could use this:



Student() :
cur_id{++id_count}
{}


There is not a significant difference in this code, but it's a good habit to get into using.



Avoid using explicit this



The current code includes this:



std::cin >> this->name;
std::cin >> this->age;


There's really no compelling reason to have this-> here explicitly and no good reason not to chain the two extractions. I'd write it like this:



std::cin >> name >> age;


Think carefully about common code



Both the Student and Professor classes read in and write out the name and age first. Since that's common to both, I'd be inclined to put that into the base Person class. As an example, within the Person class:



virtual void getdata() {
std::cin >> name >> age;
}


Then within the Student class:



void getdata() override {
Person::getdata(); // call the base class
for (auto &mark : marks) { // do things unique to Student
std::cin >> mark;
}
}


This would also have the benefit that you could have Person member data private instead of protected.



Consider explicitly defining all member data



What is the value of name just after a Professor object is created? If you don't know, or if you know but think it ould be improved, I'd suggest explicitly defining all member data such that a constructed object has a known, rational state.



Make your base class destructor virtual



By default, a compiler-generated destructor is concrete rather than virtual, but this leads to problems with collections of objects. See this question for more details on why.



Consider the user



It would be convenient to be able to specify streams other than std::cin and std::cout for your classes. One way to do that and still be able to use the given inteface code would be to have a default parameter like this:



void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const override;


That way, calling code that does not specify an argument will get std::cout but it's still possible to explicitly specify some other stream.



Comments on given code harness



Match new with delete



If you allocate memory using new, you should also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since main uses new to create each Person object, it should also delete each such object. Yes, the operating system will enerally clean up such messes, but there's little advantage in creating them in the first place.



Use more descriptive variable names



Single-letter variable names and extremely generic names like val make it harder to understand the program. More meaningful variable names make the code easier to read and maintain.



Check your if statements for proper braces



It's not helpful to use curly braces on the if clause and then omit them on the else clause. Generally, I prefer to always have the braces. It makes the intent clear and prevents bugs being introduced in maintenance.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "196"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f183165%2fhackerrank-virtual-function-practice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted











    • Be consistent.

      You use a blank line to separate classes Student and Professor: Person and Studentdeserve no less. (Same goes for change in accessibility; alternatives to a blank line include (less) indent.)

    • Don't write, never present uncommented code.

      Use all machine/tool support you can get: have a look at doxygen.

    • make classes (and functions) final when further derivation/overriding is bound to break something, only.

    • Think of derivation as extension or specialisation.

      You declared common attributes for Person: try and do the same for behaviour, even if it is more cumbersome in C++ (& influenced languages) than in Simula: There, a virtual function gets to call inner - with common code before&after.

      In C++, I know no better than starting Derived::f() with Base::f();.

      In this example, getdata() & putdata() shouldn't be pure virtual:
      Person::getdata() should input name and age; Person::putdata() output them. We are stuck without a method to handle specialised output is complete imposing. One can define void putdata() const { std::cout << toString() << std::endl; } (with toString() facing the exact problem with cur_id "on the other side").


    • Avoid overly long lines.



      name + " " + std::to_string(age)
      + " " + std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0)
      + " " + std::to_string(cur_id)


      is easier to read and probably works just as well as a one-liner.




    (While this review has been received exceedingly friendly,

    the following code misses the mark correct contemporary C++ by a mile.

    (Hopefully closing in with revisions (incorporating advice from Edward's answer);

    Having "fun" with IDEone - don't hold your breath.))



    Shots from the hip:



    /*! brief Person sporting common attributes
    * and get/putdata().
    *
    * Attributes include name, age, and an in-subclass ID.
    * getdata() reads from std::cin, starting with name&age;
    * putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    class Person {
    protected:
    // const int cur_id;
    std::string name;
    int age;
    /*! terse human readable representation.
    */
    virtual std::string toString() const {
    return name + " " + std::to_string(age);
    }
    ~Person(){}
    public:
    /*! read name&age from std::cin.
    */
    virtual void getdata() {
    std::cin >> name >> age;
    }
    /*! putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    virtual void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const {
    out << toString() << std::endl;
    }
    };

    /*! Student adds marks for subjects to the common attributes.
    */
    class Student : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    std::array<int, 6> marks;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(
    std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0))
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Student() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add marks.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    for (auto &mark : marks)
    std::cin >> mark;
    }
    };

    /*! Professor adds a publication count to the common attributes.
    */
    class Professor final : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    int publications;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(publications)
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Professor() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add publications.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    std::cin >> publications;
    }
    };

    int Student::id_count = 0;
    int Professor::id_count = 0;





    share|improve this answer























    • (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
      – greybeard
      Dec 24 '17 at 10:43












    • Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
      – WooWapDaBug
      Dec 24 '17 at 15:01










    • (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
      – greybeard
      Dec 25 '17 at 8:49















    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted











    • Be consistent.

      You use a blank line to separate classes Student and Professor: Person and Studentdeserve no less. (Same goes for change in accessibility; alternatives to a blank line include (less) indent.)

    • Don't write, never present uncommented code.

      Use all machine/tool support you can get: have a look at doxygen.

    • make classes (and functions) final when further derivation/overriding is bound to break something, only.

    • Think of derivation as extension or specialisation.

      You declared common attributes for Person: try and do the same for behaviour, even if it is more cumbersome in C++ (& influenced languages) than in Simula: There, a virtual function gets to call inner - with common code before&after.

      In C++, I know no better than starting Derived::f() with Base::f();.

      In this example, getdata() & putdata() shouldn't be pure virtual:
      Person::getdata() should input name and age; Person::putdata() output them. We are stuck without a method to handle specialised output is complete imposing. One can define void putdata() const { std::cout << toString() << std::endl; } (with toString() facing the exact problem with cur_id "on the other side").


    • Avoid overly long lines.



      name + " " + std::to_string(age)
      + " " + std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0)
      + " " + std::to_string(cur_id)


      is easier to read and probably works just as well as a one-liner.




    (While this review has been received exceedingly friendly,

    the following code misses the mark correct contemporary C++ by a mile.

    (Hopefully closing in with revisions (incorporating advice from Edward's answer);

    Having "fun" with IDEone - don't hold your breath.))



    Shots from the hip:



    /*! brief Person sporting common attributes
    * and get/putdata().
    *
    * Attributes include name, age, and an in-subclass ID.
    * getdata() reads from std::cin, starting with name&age;
    * putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    class Person {
    protected:
    // const int cur_id;
    std::string name;
    int age;
    /*! terse human readable representation.
    */
    virtual std::string toString() const {
    return name + " " + std::to_string(age);
    }
    ~Person(){}
    public:
    /*! read name&age from std::cin.
    */
    virtual void getdata() {
    std::cin >> name >> age;
    }
    /*! putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    virtual void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const {
    out << toString() << std::endl;
    }
    };

    /*! Student adds marks for subjects to the common attributes.
    */
    class Student : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    std::array<int, 6> marks;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(
    std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0))
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Student() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add marks.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    for (auto &mark : marks)
    std::cin >> mark;
    }
    };

    /*! Professor adds a publication count to the common attributes.
    */
    class Professor final : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    int publications;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(publications)
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Professor() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add publications.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    std::cin >> publications;
    }
    };

    int Student::id_count = 0;
    int Professor::id_count = 0;





    share|improve this answer























    • (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
      – greybeard
      Dec 24 '17 at 10:43












    • Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
      – WooWapDaBug
      Dec 24 '17 at 15:01










    • (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
      – greybeard
      Dec 25 '17 at 8:49













    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted







    • Be consistent.

      You use a blank line to separate classes Student and Professor: Person and Studentdeserve no less. (Same goes for change in accessibility; alternatives to a blank line include (less) indent.)

    • Don't write, never present uncommented code.

      Use all machine/tool support you can get: have a look at doxygen.

    • make classes (and functions) final when further derivation/overriding is bound to break something, only.

    • Think of derivation as extension or specialisation.

      You declared common attributes for Person: try and do the same for behaviour, even if it is more cumbersome in C++ (& influenced languages) than in Simula: There, a virtual function gets to call inner - with common code before&after.

      In C++, I know no better than starting Derived::f() with Base::f();.

      In this example, getdata() & putdata() shouldn't be pure virtual:
      Person::getdata() should input name and age; Person::putdata() output them. We are stuck without a method to handle specialised output is complete imposing. One can define void putdata() const { std::cout << toString() << std::endl; } (with toString() facing the exact problem with cur_id "on the other side").


    • Avoid overly long lines.



      name + " " + std::to_string(age)
      + " " + std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0)
      + " " + std::to_string(cur_id)


      is easier to read and probably works just as well as a one-liner.




    (While this review has been received exceedingly friendly,

    the following code misses the mark correct contemporary C++ by a mile.

    (Hopefully closing in with revisions (incorporating advice from Edward's answer);

    Having "fun" with IDEone - don't hold your breath.))



    Shots from the hip:



    /*! brief Person sporting common attributes
    * and get/putdata().
    *
    * Attributes include name, age, and an in-subclass ID.
    * getdata() reads from std::cin, starting with name&age;
    * putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    class Person {
    protected:
    // const int cur_id;
    std::string name;
    int age;
    /*! terse human readable representation.
    */
    virtual std::string toString() const {
    return name + " " + std::to_string(age);
    }
    ~Person(){}
    public:
    /*! read name&age from std::cin.
    */
    virtual void getdata() {
    std::cin >> name >> age;
    }
    /*! putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    virtual void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const {
    out << toString() << std::endl;
    }
    };

    /*! Student adds marks for subjects to the common attributes.
    */
    class Student : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    std::array<int, 6> marks;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(
    std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0))
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Student() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add marks.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    for (auto &mark : marks)
    std::cin >> mark;
    }
    };

    /*! Professor adds a publication count to the common attributes.
    */
    class Professor final : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    int publications;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(publications)
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Professor() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add publications.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    std::cin >> publications;
    }
    };

    int Student::id_count = 0;
    int Professor::id_count = 0;





    share|improve this answer















    • Be consistent.

      You use a blank line to separate classes Student and Professor: Person and Studentdeserve no less. (Same goes for change in accessibility; alternatives to a blank line include (less) indent.)

    • Don't write, never present uncommented code.

      Use all machine/tool support you can get: have a look at doxygen.

    • make classes (and functions) final when further derivation/overriding is bound to break something, only.

    • Think of derivation as extension or specialisation.

      You declared common attributes for Person: try and do the same for behaviour, even if it is more cumbersome in C++ (& influenced languages) than in Simula: There, a virtual function gets to call inner - with common code before&after.

      In C++, I know no better than starting Derived::f() with Base::f();.

      In this example, getdata() & putdata() shouldn't be pure virtual:
      Person::getdata() should input name and age; Person::putdata() output them. We are stuck without a method to handle specialised output is complete imposing. One can define void putdata() const { std::cout << toString() << std::endl; } (with toString() facing the exact problem with cur_id "on the other side").


    • Avoid overly long lines.



      name + " " + std::to_string(age)
      + " " + std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0)
      + " " + std::to_string(cur_id)


      is easier to read and probably works just as well as a one-liner.




    (While this review has been received exceedingly friendly,

    the following code misses the mark correct contemporary C++ by a mile.

    (Hopefully closing in with revisions (incorporating advice from Edward's answer);

    Having "fun" with IDEone - don't hold your breath.))



    Shots from the hip:



    /*! brief Person sporting common attributes
    * and get/putdata().
    *
    * Attributes include name, age, and an in-subclass ID.
    * getdata() reads from std::cin, starting with name&age;
    * putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    class Person {
    protected:
    // const int cur_id;
    std::string name;
    int age;
    /*! terse human readable representation.
    */
    virtual std::string toString() const {
    return name + " " + std::to_string(age);
    }
    ~Person(){}
    public:
    /*! read name&age from std::cin.
    */
    virtual void getdata() {
    std::cin >> name >> age;
    }
    /*! putdata() writes a line to std::cout.
    */
    virtual void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const {
    out << toString() << std::endl;
    }
    };

    /*! Student adds marks for subjects to the common attributes.
    */
    class Student : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    std::array<int, 6> marks;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(
    std::accumulate(marks.begin(), marks.end(), 0))
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Student() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add marks.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    for (auto &mark : marks)
    std::cin >> mark;
    }
    };

    /*! Professor adds a publication count to the common attributes.
    */
    class Professor final : public Person {
    const int cur_id;
    // static std::atomic<int> id_count(0);
    int publications;
    protected:
    std::string toString() const override {
    return Person::toString()
    + " " + std::to_string(publications)
    + " " + std::to_string(cur_id);
    }
    public:
    static int id_count;// = 0;
    Professor() : cur_id(++id_count) {}
    /*! read as Person from std::cin; add publications.
    */
    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata();
    std::cin >> publications;
    }
    };

    int Student::id_count = 0;
    int Professor::id_count = 0;






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 21 mins ago


























    community wiki





    5 revs, 3 users 98%
    greybeard













    • (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
      – greybeard
      Dec 24 '17 at 10:43












    • Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
      – WooWapDaBug
      Dec 24 '17 at 15:01










    • (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
      – greybeard
      Dec 25 '17 at 8:49


















    • (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
      – greybeard
      Dec 24 '17 at 10:43












    • Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
      – WooWapDaBug
      Dec 24 '17 at 15:01










    • (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
      – greybeard
      Dec 25 '17 at 8:49
















    (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
    – greybeard
    Dec 24 '17 at 10:43






    (Without a half-decent C++-environment in working condition, I have no idea whether, for example, cur_id works (please feel invited to edit): I want it unmodifiable after instantiation, I want one declaration for the entire hierarchy - I have a nagging feeling it not only doesn't work as presented: I must be missing a way not to repeat its initialisation.) (I keep forgetting about on-line environments - age showing:)
    – greybeard
    Dec 24 '17 at 10:43














    Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 15:01




    Thank you very much for your answer. I'll work on the tips you have given me
    – WooWapDaBug
    Dec 24 '17 at 15:01












    (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
    – greybeard
    Dec 25 '17 at 8:49




    (I never quite got ostream operator << to be the method to append human readable representation.)
    – greybeard
    Dec 25 '17 at 8:49












    up vote
    6
    down vote













    It's unfortunate that we can't fix the provided code, as there is a lot more wrong with it than with your code, in my view. Because this is a learning exercise and because it may benefit others who read this later, I'm going to review both pieces of code, starting with the code you actually wrote.



    Fix the bug



    There is one instance in which endl is used without std:: namespace. It won't compile that way on my machine. In any case, see the next suggestion.



    Don't use std::endl if you don't really need it



    The difference betweeen std::endl and 'n' is that 'n' just emits a newline character, while std::endl actually flushes the stream. This can be time-consuming in a program with a lot of I/O and is rarely actually needed. It's best to only use std::endl when you have some good reason to flush the stream and it's not very often needed for simple programs such as this one. Avoiding the habit of using std::endl when 'n' will do will pay dividends in the future as you write more complex programs with more I/O and where performance needs to be maximized.



    Understand inline



    The inline specifier is new with C++17 and would allow one to, in this case, put the initialization of the member variable id_count within the header file, even if the header file is #included in multiple other files (technically translation units). In the context of the original code, there's not much real benefit to it, since there appears to be only one translation unit. Using C++11 (or C++14) syntax, one could simply omit the inline keyword and then write



    int Student::id_count{0};


    outside the class definition. Maybe you already knew all of that, but I think it's worthwhile clarifying what it means and how it works.



    Prefer modern initializers for constructors



    The constructor use the more modern initializer style rather than the old style you're currently using. Instead of this:



    Student(){
    cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
    }


    You could use this:



    Student() :
    cur_id{++id_count}
    {}


    There is not a significant difference in this code, but it's a good habit to get into using.



    Avoid using explicit this



    The current code includes this:



    std::cin >> this->name;
    std::cin >> this->age;


    There's really no compelling reason to have this-> here explicitly and no good reason not to chain the two extractions. I'd write it like this:



    std::cin >> name >> age;


    Think carefully about common code



    Both the Student and Professor classes read in and write out the name and age first. Since that's common to both, I'd be inclined to put that into the base Person class. As an example, within the Person class:



    virtual void getdata() {
    std::cin >> name >> age;
    }


    Then within the Student class:



    void getdata() override {
    Person::getdata(); // call the base class
    for (auto &mark : marks) { // do things unique to Student
    std::cin >> mark;
    }
    }


    This would also have the benefit that you could have Person member data private instead of protected.



    Consider explicitly defining all member data



    What is the value of name just after a Professor object is created? If you don't know, or if you know but think it ould be improved, I'd suggest explicitly defining all member data such that a constructed object has a known, rational state.



    Make your base class destructor virtual



    By default, a compiler-generated destructor is concrete rather than virtual, but this leads to problems with collections of objects. See this question for more details on why.



    Consider the user



    It would be convenient to be able to specify streams other than std::cin and std::cout for your classes. One way to do that and still be able to use the given inteface code would be to have a default parameter like this:



    void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const override;


    That way, calling code that does not specify an argument will get std::cout but it's still possible to explicitly specify some other stream.



    Comments on given code harness



    Match new with delete



    If you allocate memory using new, you should also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since main uses new to create each Person object, it should also delete each such object. Yes, the operating system will enerally clean up such messes, but there's little advantage in creating them in the first place.



    Use more descriptive variable names



    Single-letter variable names and extremely generic names like val make it harder to understand the program. More meaningful variable names make the code easier to read and maintain.



    Check your if statements for proper braces



    It's not helpful to use curly braces on the if clause and then omit them on the else clause. Generally, I prefer to always have the braces. It makes the intent clear and prevents bugs being introduced in maintenance.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      6
      down vote













      It's unfortunate that we can't fix the provided code, as there is a lot more wrong with it than with your code, in my view. Because this is a learning exercise and because it may benefit others who read this later, I'm going to review both pieces of code, starting with the code you actually wrote.



      Fix the bug



      There is one instance in which endl is used without std:: namespace. It won't compile that way on my machine. In any case, see the next suggestion.



      Don't use std::endl if you don't really need it



      The difference betweeen std::endl and 'n' is that 'n' just emits a newline character, while std::endl actually flushes the stream. This can be time-consuming in a program with a lot of I/O and is rarely actually needed. It's best to only use std::endl when you have some good reason to flush the stream and it's not very often needed for simple programs such as this one. Avoiding the habit of using std::endl when 'n' will do will pay dividends in the future as you write more complex programs with more I/O and where performance needs to be maximized.



      Understand inline



      The inline specifier is new with C++17 and would allow one to, in this case, put the initialization of the member variable id_count within the header file, even if the header file is #included in multiple other files (technically translation units). In the context of the original code, there's not much real benefit to it, since there appears to be only one translation unit. Using C++11 (or C++14) syntax, one could simply omit the inline keyword and then write



      int Student::id_count{0};


      outside the class definition. Maybe you already knew all of that, but I think it's worthwhile clarifying what it means and how it works.



      Prefer modern initializers for constructors



      The constructor use the more modern initializer style rather than the old style you're currently using. Instead of this:



      Student(){
      cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
      }


      You could use this:



      Student() :
      cur_id{++id_count}
      {}


      There is not a significant difference in this code, but it's a good habit to get into using.



      Avoid using explicit this



      The current code includes this:



      std::cin >> this->name;
      std::cin >> this->age;


      There's really no compelling reason to have this-> here explicitly and no good reason not to chain the two extractions. I'd write it like this:



      std::cin >> name >> age;


      Think carefully about common code



      Both the Student and Professor classes read in and write out the name and age first. Since that's common to both, I'd be inclined to put that into the base Person class. As an example, within the Person class:



      virtual void getdata() {
      std::cin >> name >> age;
      }


      Then within the Student class:



      void getdata() override {
      Person::getdata(); // call the base class
      for (auto &mark : marks) { // do things unique to Student
      std::cin >> mark;
      }
      }


      This would also have the benefit that you could have Person member data private instead of protected.



      Consider explicitly defining all member data



      What is the value of name just after a Professor object is created? If you don't know, or if you know but think it ould be improved, I'd suggest explicitly defining all member data such that a constructed object has a known, rational state.



      Make your base class destructor virtual



      By default, a compiler-generated destructor is concrete rather than virtual, but this leads to problems with collections of objects. See this question for more details on why.



      Consider the user



      It would be convenient to be able to specify streams other than std::cin and std::cout for your classes. One way to do that and still be able to use the given inteface code would be to have a default parameter like this:



      void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const override;


      That way, calling code that does not specify an argument will get std::cout but it's still possible to explicitly specify some other stream.



      Comments on given code harness



      Match new with delete



      If you allocate memory using new, you should also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since main uses new to create each Person object, it should also delete each such object. Yes, the operating system will enerally clean up such messes, but there's little advantage in creating them in the first place.



      Use more descriptive variable names



      Single-letter variable names and extremely generic names like val make it harder to understand the program. More meaningful variable names make the code easier to read and maintain.



      Check your if statements for proper braces



      It's not helpful to use curly braces on the if clause and then omit them on the else clause. Generally, I prefer to always have the braces. It makes the intent clear and prevents bugs being introduced in maintenance.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        6
        down vote










        up vote
        6
        down vote









        It's unfortunate that we can't fix the provided code, as there is a lot more wrong with it than with your code, in my view. Because this is a learning exercise and because it may benefit others who read this later, I'm going to review both pieces of code, starting with the code you actually wrote.



        Fix the bug



        There is one instance in which endl is used without std:: namespace. It won't compile that way on my machine. In any case, see the next suggestion.



        Don't use std::endl if you don't really need it



        The difference betweeen std::endl and 'n' is that 'n' just emits a newline character, while std::endl actually flushes the stream. This can be time-consuming in a program with a lot of I/O and is rarely actually needed. It's best to only use std::endl when you have some good reason to flush the stream and it's not very often needed for simple programs such as this one. Avoiding the habit of using std::endl when 'n' will do will pay dividends in the future as you write more complex programs with more I/O and where performance needs to be maximized.



        Understand inline



        The inline specifier is new with C++17 and would allow one to, in this case, put the initialization of the member variable id_count within the header file, even if the header file is #included in multiple other files (technically translation units). In the context of the original code, there's not much real benefit to it, since there appears to be only one translation unit. Using C++11 (or C++14) syntax, one could simply omit the inline keyword and then write



        int Student::id_count{0};


        outside the class definition. Maybe you already knew all of that, but I think it's worthwhile clarifying what it means and how it works.



        Prefer modern initializers for constructors



        The constructor use the more modern initializer style rather than the old style you're currently using. Instead of this:



        Student(){
        cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
        }


        You could use this:



        Student() :
        cur_id{++id_count}
        {}


        There is not a significant difference in this code, but it's a good habit to get into using.



        Avoid using explicit this



        The current code includes this:



        std::cin >> this->name;
        std::cin >> this->age;


        There's really no compelling reason to have this-> here explicitly and no good reason not to chain the two extractions. I'd write it like this:



        std::cin >> name >> age;


        Think carefully about common code



        Both the Student and Professor classes read in and write out the name and age first. Since that's common to both, I'd be inclined to put that into the base Person class. As an example, within the Person class:



        virtual void getdata() {
        std::cin >> name >> age;
        }


        Then within the Student class:



        void getdata() override {
        Person::getdata(); // call the base class
        for (auto &mark : marks) { // do things unique to Student
        std::cin >> mark;
        }
        }


        This would also have the benefit that you could have Person member data private instead of protected.



        Consider explicitly defining all member data



        What is the value of name just after a Professor object is created? If you don't know, or if you know but think it ould be improved, I'd suggest explicitly defining all member data such that a constructed object has a known, rational state.



        Make your base class destructor virtual



        By default, a compiler-generated destructor is concrete rather than virtual, but this leads to problems with collections of objects. See this question for more details on why.



        Consider the user



        It would be convenient to be able to specify streams other than std::cin and std::cout for your classes. One way to do that and still be able to use the given inteface code would be to have a default parameter like this:



        void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const override;


        That way, calling code that does not specify an argument will get std::cout but it's still possible to explicitly specify some other stream.



        Comments on given code harness



        Match new with delete



        If you allocate memory using new, you should also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since main uses new to create each Person object, it should also delete each such object. Yes, the operating system will enerally clean up such messes, but there's little advantage in creating them in the first place.



        Use more descriptive variable names



        Single-letter variable names and extremely generic names like val make it harder to understand the program. More meaningful variable names make the code easier to read and maintain.



        Check your if statements for proper braces



        It's not helpful to use curly braces on the if clause and then omit them on the else clause. Generally, I prefer to always have the braces. It makes the intent clear and prevents bugs being introduced in maintenance.






        share|improve this answer














        It's unfortunate that we can't fix the provided code, as there is a lot more wrong with it than with your code, in my view. Because this is a learning exercise and because it may benefit others who read this later, I'm going to review both pieces of code, starting with the code you actually wrote.



        Fix the bug



        There is one instance in which endl is used without std:: namespace. It won't compile that way on my machine. In any case, see the next suggestion.



        Don't use std::endl if you don't really need it



        The difference betweeen std::endl and 'n' is that 'n' just emits a newline character, while std::endl actually flushes the stream. This can be time-consuming in a program with a lot of I/O and is rarely actually needed. It's best to only use std::endl when you have some good reason to flush the stream and it's not very often needed for simple programs such as this one. Avoiding the habit of using std::endl when 'n' will do will pay dividends in the future as you write more complex programs with more I/O and where performance needs to be maximized.



        Understand inline



        The inline specifier is new with C++17 and would allow one to, in this case, put the initialization of the member variable id_count within the header file, even if the header file is #included in multiple other files (technically translation units). In the context of the original code, there's not much real benefit to it, since there appears to be only one translation unit. Using C++11 (or C++14) syntax, one could simply omit the inline keyword and then write



        int Student::id_count{0};


        outside the class definition. Maybe you already knew all of that, but I think it's worthwhile clarifying what it means and how it works.



        Prefer modern initializers for constructors



        The constructor use the more modern initializer style rather than the old style you're currently using. Instead of this:



        Student(){
        cur_id = ++Student::id_count;
        }


        You could use this:



        Student() :
        cur_id{++id_count}
        {}


        There is not a significant difference in this code, but it's a good habit to get into using.



        Avoid using explicit this



        The current code includes this:



        std::cin >> this->name;
        std::cin >> this->age;


        There's really no compelling reason to have this-> here explicitly and no good reason not to chain the two extractions. I'd write it like this:



        std::cin >> name >> age;


        Think carefully about common code



        Both the Student and Professor classes read in and write out the name and age first. Since that's common to both, I'd be inclined to put that into the base Person class. As an example, within the Person class:



        virtual void getdata() {
        std::cin >> name >> age;
        }


        Then within the Student class:



        void getdata() override {
        Person::getdata(); // call the base class
        for (auto &mark : marks) { // do things unique to Student
        std::cin >> mark;
        }
        }


        This would also have the benefit that you could have Person member data private instead of protected.



        Consider explicitly defining all member data



        What is the value of name just after a Professor object is created? If you don't know, or if you know but think it ould be improved, I'd suggest explicitly defining all member data such that a constructed object has a known, rational state.



        Make your base class destructor virtual



        By default, a compiler-generated destructor is concrete rather than virtual, but this leads to problems with collections of objects. See this question for more details on why.



        Consider the user



        It would be convenient to be able to specify streams other than std::cin and std::cout for your classes. One way to do that and still be able to use the given inteface code would be to have a default parameter like this:



        void putdata(std::ostream &out = std::cout) const override;


        That way, calling code that does not specify an argument will get std::cout but it's still possible to explicitly specify some other stream.



        Comments on given code harness



        Match new with delete



        If you allocate memory using new, you should also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since main uses new to create each Person object, it should also delete each such object. Yes, the operating system will enerally clean up such messes, but there's little advantage in creating them in the first place.



        Use more descriptive variable names



        Single-letter variable names and extremely generic names like val make it harder to understand the program. More meaningful variable names make the code easier to read and maintain.



        Check your if statements for proper braces



        It's not helpful to use curly braces on the if clause and then omit them on the else clause. Generally, I prefer to always have the braces. It makes the intent clear and prevents bugs being introduced in maintenance.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Dec 24 '17 at 18:07

























        answered Dec 24 '17 at 15:41









        Edward

        45.6k377207




        45.6k377207






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f183165%2fhackerrank-virtual-function-practice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei