Does creating an instance of a child class create an instance of the parent class?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
2












I'm new to C#, and I wanted to know, that if I create an instance of a child class, does it also automatically create an instance of the parent class or what?



Here is my code:



class Program
{

public class ParentClass
{
public ParentClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("ChildClass uses my Ctor ");
}

}

public class ChildClass : ParentClass
{
public ChildClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("SaySomething");
}
}

public static void Main()
{
ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
}
}









share|improve this question




























    up vote
    18
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    I'm new to C#, and I wanted to know, that if I create an instance of a child class, does it also automatically create an instance of the parent class or what?



    Here is my code:



    class Program
    {

    public class ParentClass
    {
    public ParentClass()
    {
    Console.WriteLine("ChildClass uses my Ctor ");
    }

    }

    public class ChildClass : ParentClass
    {
    public ChildClass()
    {
    Console.WriteLine("SaySomething");
    }
    }

    public static void Main()
    {
    ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
    }
    }









    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      I'm new to C#, and I wanted to know, that if I create an instance of a child class, does it also automatically create an instance of the parent class or what?



      Here is my code:



      class Program
      {

      public class ParentClass
      {
      public ParentClass()
      {
      Console.WriteLine("ChildClass uses my Ctor ");
      }

      }

      public class ChildClass : ParentClass
      {
      public ChildClass()
      {
      Console.WriteLine("SaySomething");
      }
      }

      public static void Main()
      {
      ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
      }
      }









      share|improve this question















      I'm new to C#, and I wanted to know, that if I create an instance of a child class, does it also automatically create an instance of the parent class or what?



      Here is my code:



      class Program
      {

      public class ParentClass
      {
      public ParentClass()
      {
      Console.WriteLine("ChildClass uses my Ctor ");
      }

      }

      public class ChildClass : ParentClass
      {
      public ChildClass()
      {
      Console.WriteLine("SaySomething");
      }
      }

      public static void Main()
      {
      ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
      }
      }






      c# .net






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 21 at 6:48









      Peter Mortensen

      13.3k1983111




      13.3k1983111










      asked Nov 20 at 15:01









      brk

      1084




      1084
























          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          53
          down vote














          does it also automatically create an instance of the Parent class?




          Not a separate instance; the ChildClass is a ParentClass instance, when talking about inheritance.



          In words, this is like:




          when creating a dog, do we also create an instance of an animal?




          We don't create a dog and (separately) create an animal; the dog is the animal instance. And if we create a poodle, the poodle is the dog and is the animal.






          share|improve this answer





















          • so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
            – brk
            Nov 20 at 15:06






          • 4




            @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
            – Marc Gravell
            Nov 20 at 15:09








          • 3




            @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
            – Marc Gravell
            Nov 20 at 15:10










          • Thank you guys for the infos
            – brk
            Nov 20 at 15:12






          • 11




            Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
            – Thomas Moors
            Nov 21 at 8:22


















          up vote
          8
          down vote













          No it doesn't but it calls the base constructor (the constructor of the parent class). Which in your case is empty, so the call to the base class constructor is done for you by the compiler:



          class Program
          {
          public class ParentClass
          {
          public ParentClass()
          {
          Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
          }

          }

          public class ChildClass : ParentClass
          {
          public ChildClass() : base() // base() call is voluntary
          {
          Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
          }
          }

          public static void Main()
          {
          ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
          }
          }


          However if your base class didn't have a parameterless constructor you would have to call it



          class Program
          {
          public class ParentClass
          {
          public ParentClass(string foo)
          {
          Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
          }

          }

          public class ChildClass : ParentClass
          {
          public ChildClass() : base("some foo") // base call is obligatory
          {
          Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
          }
          }

          public static void Main()
          {
          ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
          }
          }


          By definition when ChildClass inherits form ParentClass, then ChildClass objects belong to the ParentClass as well.



          If your naming was more real-life oriented, it would be easier to understand.



          class Animal {}
          class Cat : Animal {}

          var rocky = new Cat();


          See, rocky is a cat, but it is an animal as well.






          share|improve this answer























          • Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
            – brk
            Nov 20 at 15:27








          • 3




            @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
            – Andrzej Gis
            Nov 20 at 15:54




















          up vote
          7
          down vote













          The actual answer to your question is




          'No', it is an instance of the Child class, not of the Parent.




          But if your question is: "Will you have an instance-object containing all properties of the Parent class", the answer is




          'Yes', you will have all properties and fields that you have in the
          Parent class copied into the Child instance.







          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Talking specifically about your code:



            class Program
            {

            public class ParentClass
            {
            public ParentClass()
            {
            Console.WriteLine("ParentClass constructor is called");
            }

            }

            public class ChildClass : ParentClass
            {
            public ChildClass()
            {
            Console.WriteLine("ChildClassConstructor is called");
            }
            }

            public static void Main()
            {
            //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
            ChildClass child = new ChildClass();

            //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
            ParentClass childinparentbox = new ChildClass();

            //will print that the Parent ctor is called
            ParentClass parent = new ParentClass();

            //At this point there are 3 object instances in memory


            //by the way, this can't be done. Can't store a parent in a child: a parent is-not-a child
            ChildClass parentinchildbox = new ParentClass();


            }
            }


            I changed the messages to make them relevant to the point being made:



            A constructor is just a method that is force-called whenever a new object is made. You use it to set the new object up for use, initialise properties etc. Classes are hierarchical in C# - everything is always a subclass of something, sometimes Object. Your parentClass is a child of Object, it just doesn't say. Your Child is declared a child of Parent



            As others have noted, you don't get multiple instances of objects when you use new, you get one instance of whatever it was you asked to be created. Child classes can always be referred to/"stored inside" a variable that is declared to be a parent type. This is because things have an "is-a" relationship in the direction of Child -> Parent. A Dog is-a Animal, Cat is-a Animal, an Animal is-a Object. They don't have a relationship in the opposite direction.. You can't universally say a Car is-a Ferrari, or some Animal is-a Dog.



            So, things chase back up the hierarchy, and you can store a Cat or a Dog inside a variable declared to hold an Animal. Animal might have a GetNumberOfLegs() method, that reports the number of legs. Cat and Dog would each return 4, Monkey would return 2.



            One of the key tenets of object oriented programming is that you can refer to things in a generic way; all animals have some number of legs. If it's a Cat/Dog stored in the Animal, then GetNumberOfLegs() returns 4, if it's a Monkey it returns 2.. But you don't specifically need to know it's a cat, dog, monkey if all you are interested in is the number of legs. This will be covered more in coming lectures, so I don't need to get too deep into it here. I put this detail in as an explanation as to why we might even want to have a hierarchy, have an Animal, create a Dog and store it inside a variable of type Animal. We do it because often we want to refer to things in a generic way because we don't care about the specifics; we define the generic things we care about, and specific things fit the mold. You can drive a car; you don't need to be taught specifically how to drive a Ford or a Chevrolet - they have the steering wheel and pedals in the same place/arrangement. You can operate the generic interface. You don't care how the steering is implemented - hydraulic, rack and pinion, Pitman arm - you just care that when you turn the wheel "like this", the car goes "like that".



            Getting back to what you asked:



            Because Child is-a Parent is-a Object, when you make a new Child, you'll see a print out indicating the parent constructor was called and another indicating the child constructor was called. This doesn't indicate that 2 objects have been created in the memory of the computer - constructors are called in forward (root to tip) order for everything in the hierarchy starting with Object, then Parent, then Child. It's this way because the very first thing in any constructor's code, is a call to a relevant parent constructor. The first thing in that constructor's code, is a call to it's parent



            So the runtime starts at the Child, then goes to the parent, the grandparent, great grandparent, all the way to the top of the ancestry, then comes back down, running the rest of the code in each constructor in order, top to bottom. This is why you see the printout that the Parent constructor was called, then you see the Child



            It's all one and the same object, it's multiple method calls. Seeing two printouts isn't indicative of two objects in memory, it's one object with two methods (two constructor methods) that have been called in a recursive order






            share|improve this answer






























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Another way to think of a class is as just a template for objects. i.e object instances created from this class should have this implementation logic. Creating an instance of a class, takes all that logic and converts into behavior for the object. When you inherit from some class, you're basically including the implementation logic of the parent class in the template of the child class, so you just get an extended 'template'. When you create an object instance from this template, the instance uses the child template, which contains a combination of the logic defined in the parent and the child.



              Normal instantiation:
              class logic -> template -> instance



              Inheritance:
              parent class logic + child class logic -> template -> instance






              share|improve this answer




























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                No it will only create an instace of the child class.






                share|improve this answer





















                  Your Answer






                  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: "1"
                  };
                  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: true,
                  noModals: true,
                  showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                  reputationToPostImages: 10,
                  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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53395800%2fdoes-creating-an-instance-of-a-child-class-create-an-instance-of-the-parent-clas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                  }
                  );

                  Post as a guest















                  Required, but never shown

























                  6 Answers
                  6






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  6 Answers
                  6






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  up vote
                  53
                  down vote














                  does it also automatically create an instance of the Parent class?




                  Not a separate instance; the ChildClass is a ParentClass instance, when talking about inheritance.



                  In words, this is like:




                  when creating a dog, do we also create an instance of an animal?




                  We don't create a dog and (separately) create an animal; the dog is the animal instance. And if we create a poodle, the poodle is the dog and is the animal.






                  share|improve this answer





















                  • so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:06






                  • 4




                    @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:09








                  • 3




                    @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:10










                  • Thank you guys for the infos
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:12






                  • 11




                    Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                    – Thomas Moors
                    Nov 21 at 8:22















                  up vote
                  53
                  down vote














                  does it also automatically create an instance of the Parent class?




                  Not a separate instance; the ChildClass is a ParentClass instance, when talking about inheritance.



                  In words, this is like:




                  when creating a dog, do we also create an instance of an animal?




                  We don't create a dog and (separately) create an animal; the dog is the animal instance. And if we create a poodle, the poodle is the dog and is the animal.






                  share|improve this answer





















                  • so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:06






                  • 4




                    @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:09








                  • 3




                    @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:10










                  • Thank you guys for the infos
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:12






                  • 11




                    Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                    – Thomas Moors
                    Nov 21 at 8:22













                  up vote
                  53
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  53
                  down vote










                  does it also automatically create an instance of the Parent class?




                  Not a separate instance; the ChildClass is a ParentClass instance, when talking about inheritance.



                  In words, this is like:




                  when creating a dog, do we also create an instance of an animal?




                  We don't create a dog and (separately) create an animal; the dog is the animal instance. And if we create a poodle, the poodle is the dog and is the animal.






                  share|improve this answer













                  does it also automatically create an instance of the Parent class?




                  Not a separate instance; the ChildClass is a ParentClass instance, when talking about inheritance.



                  In words, this is like:




                  when creating a dog, do we also create an instance of an animal?




                  We don't create a dog and (separately) create an animal; the dog is the animal instance. And if we create a poodle, the poodle is the dog and is the animal.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 20 at 15:03









                  Marc Gravell

                  772k19021212537




                  772k19021212537












                  • so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:06






                  • 4




                    @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:09








                  • 3




                    @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:10










                  • Thank you guys for the infos
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:12






                  • 11




                    Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                    – Thomas Moors
                    Nov 21 at 8:22


















                  • so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:06






                  • 4




                    @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:09








                  • 3




                    @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                    – Marc Gravell
                    Nov 20 at 15:10










                  • Thank you guys for the infos
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:12






                  • 11




                    Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                    – Thomas Moors
                    Nov 21 at 8:22
















                  so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:06




                  so if i understood correctly, basicly we craete an instance of Animal class right?
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:06




                  4




                  4




                  @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                  – Marc Gravell
                  Nov 20 at 15:09






                  @brk well... both yes and no; if we create an instance of type Dog, and ask what it is (GetType()): it will say Dog; however, all Dogs are animals, so it is true to say that dogInstance is Animal. We haven't created a new Animal() instance that only knows about Animal, though. In fact, Animal could be abstract (and probably should be)
                  – Marc Gravell
                  Nov 20 at 15:09






                  3




                  3




                  @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                  – Marc Gravell
                  Nov 20 at 15:10




                  @brk to put it another way: it isn't implemented as though the Dog instance had a private field that is Animal _baseTypeInstance; - there is only one object here, and as far as it is concerned: it is a Dog
                  – Marc Gravell
                  Nov 20 at 15:10












                  Thank you guys for the infos
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:12




                  Thank you guys for the infos
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:12




                  11




                  11




                  Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                  – Thomas Moors
                  Nov 21 at 8:22




                  Real life analogy: if you bought a dog, did you also buy an animal? Yes but not an entire seperate animal.
                  – Thomas Moors
                  Nov 21 at 8:22












                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote













                  No it doesn't but it calls the base constructor (the constructor of the parent class). Which in your case is empty, so the call to the base class constructor is done for you by the compiler:



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass()
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base() // base() call is voluntary
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  However if your base class didn't have a parameterless constructor you would have to call it



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass(string foo)
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base("some foo") // base call is obligatory
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  By definition when ChildClass inherits form ParentClass, then ChildClass objects belong to the ParentClass as well.



                  If your naming was more real-life oriented, it would be easier to understand.



                  class Animal {}
                  class Cat : Animal {}

                  var rocky = new Cat();


                  See, rocky is a cat, but it is an animal as well.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:27








                  • 3




                    @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                    – Andrzej Gis
                    Nov 20 at 15:54

















                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote













                  No it doesn't but it calls the base constructor (the constructor of the parent class). Which in your case is empty, so the call to the base class constructor is done for you by the compiler:



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass()
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base() // base() call is voluntary
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  However if your base class didn't have a parameterless constructor you would have to call it



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass(string foo)
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base("some foo") // base call is obligatory
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  By definition when ChildClass inherits form ParentClass, then ChildClass objects belong to the ParentClass as well.



                  If your naming was more real-life oriented, it would be easier to understand.



                  class Animal {}
                  class Cat : Animal {}

                  var rocky = new Cat();


                  See, rocky is a cat, but it is an animal as well.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:27








                  • 3




                    @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                    – Andrzej Gis
                    Nov 20 at 15:54















                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote









                  No it doesn't but it calls the base constructor (the constructor of the parent class). Which in your case is empty, so the call to the base class constructor is done for you by the compiler:



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass()
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base() // base() call is voluntary
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  However if your base class didn't have a parameterless constructor you would have to call it



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass(string foo)
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base("some foo") // base call is obligatory
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  By definition when ChildClass inherits form ParentClass, then ChildClass objects belong to the ParentClass as well.



                  If your naming was more real-life oriented, it would be easier to understand.



                  class Animal {}
                  class Cat : Animal {}

                  var rocky = new Cat();


                  See, rocky is a cat, but it is an animal as well.






                  share|improve this answer














                  No it doesn't but it calls the base constructor (the constructor of the parent class). Which in your case is empty, so the call to the base class constructor is done for you by the compiler:



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass()
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base() // base() call is voluntary
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  However if your base class didn't have a parameterless constructor you would have to call it



                  class Program
                  {
                  public class ParentClass
                  {
                  public ParentClass(string foo)
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("ChildClass drived from me ");
                  }

                  }

                  public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                  {
                  public ChildClass() : base("some foo") // base call is obligatory
                  {
                  Console.WriteLine("This also use my Ctor");
                  }
                  }

                  public static void Main()
                  {
                  ChildClass child = new ChildClass();
                  }
                  }


                  By definition when ChildClass inherits form ParentClass, then ChildClass objects belong to the ParentClass as well.



                  If your naming was more real-life oriented, it would be easier to understand.



                  class Animal {}
                  class Cat : Animal {}

                  var rocky = new Cat();


                  See, rocky is a cat, but it is an animal as well.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 21 at 12:52

























                  answered Nov 20 at 15:04









                  Andrzej Gis

                  6,53485197




                  6,53485197












                  • Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:27








                  • 3




                    @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                    – Andrzej Gis
                    Nov 20 at 15:54




















                  • Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                    – brk
                    Nov 20 at 15:27








                  • 3




                    @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                    – Andrzej Gis
                    Nov 20 at 15:54


















                  Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:27






                  Thank you that was useful, can you also please tell me why we can not do something like this: Animal dog = new Dog(); Dog ricky = dog; // cannot implicity convert Type "Animal" to "Dog"
                  – brk
                  Nov 20 at 15:27






                  3




                  3




                  @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                  – Andrzej Gis
                  Nov 20 at 15:54






                  @brk Because not every animal is a dog :). The "dog" variable in your code is of Animal type. Currently you have assigned a Dog to it. But you could've also assigned a Cat (dog = new Cat()). So compiler won't let you assign the "dog" (Aminal) to a Dog class. Unless you cast it (Dog ricky = (Dog)dog) - this way you tell the compiler you know what you're doing and you're not accidentally assigning a Cat to a Dog. However if the "dog" is not a Dog, you will get an InvalidCastException.
                  – Andrzej Gis
                  Nov 20 at 15:54












                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote













                  The actual answer to your question is




                  'No', it is an instance of the Child class, not of the Parent.




                  But if your question is: "Will you have an instance-object containing all properties of the Parent class", the answer is




                  'Yes', you will have all properties and fields that you have in the
                  Parent class copied into the Child instance.







                  share|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote













                    The actual answer to your question is




                    'No', it is an instance of the Child class, not of the Parent.




                    But if your question is: "Will you have an instance-object containing all properties of the Parent class", the answer is




                    'Yes', you will have all properties and fields that you have in the
                    Parent class copied into the Child instance.







                    share|improve this answer























                      up vote
                      7
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      7
                      down vote









                      The actual answer to your question is




                      'No', it is an instance of the Child class, not of the Parent.




                      But if your question is: "Will you have an instance-object containing all properties of the Parent class", the answer is




                      'Yes', you will have all properties and fields that you have in the
                      Parent class copied into the Child instance.







                      share|improve this answer












                      The actual answer to your question is




                      'No', it is an instance of the Child class, not of the Parent.




                      But if your question is: "Will you have an instance-object containing all properties of the Parent class", the answer is




                      'Yes', you will have all properties and fields that you have in the
                      Parent class copied into the Child instance.








                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 20 at 15:11









                      Mayer Spitzer

                      551314




                      551314






















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          Talking specifically about your code:



                          class Program
                          {

                          public class ParentClass
                          {
                          public ParentClass()
                          {
                          Console.WriteLine("ParentClass constructor is called");
                          }

                          }

                          public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                          {
                          public ChildClass()
                          {
                          Console.WriteLine("ChildClassConstructor is called");
                          }
                          }

                          public static void Main()
                          {
                          //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                          ChildClass child = new ChildClass();

                          //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                          ParentClass childinparentbox = new ChildClass();

                          //will print that the Parent ctor is called
                          ParentClass parent = new ParentClass();

                          //At this point there are 3 object instances in memory


                          //by the way, this can't be done. Can't store a parent in a child: a parent is-not-a child
                          ChildClass parentinchildbox = new ParentClass();


                          }
                          }


                          I changed the messages to make them relevant to the point being made:



                          A constructor is just a method that is force-called whenever a new object is made. You use it to set the new object up for use, initialise properties etc. Classes are hierarchical in C# - everything is always a subclass of something, sometimes Object. Your parentClass is a child of Object, it just doesn't say. Your Child is declared a child of Parent



                          As others have noted, you don't get multiple instances of objects when you use new, you get one instance of whatever it was you asked to be created. Child classes can always be referred to/"stored inside" a variable that is declared to be a parent type. This is because things have an "is-a" relationship in the direction of Child -> Parent. A Dog is-a Animal, Cat is-a Animal, an Animal is-a Object. They don't have a relationship in the opposite direction.. You can't universally say a Car is-a Ferrari, or some Animal is-a Dog.



                          So, things chase back up the hierarchy, and you can store a Cat or a Dog inside a variable declared to hold an Animal. Animal might have a GetNumberOfLegs() method, that reports the number of legs. Cat and Dog would each return 4, Monkey would return 2.



                          One of the key tenets of object oriented programming is that you can refer to things in a generic way; all animals have some number of legs. If it's a Cat/Dog stored in the Animal, then GetNumberOfLegs() returns 4, if it's a Monkey it returns 2.. But you don't specifically need to know it's a cat, dog, monkey if all you are interested in is the number of legs. This will be covered more in coming lectures, so I don't need to get too deep into it here. I put this detail in as an explanation as to why we might even want to have a hierarchy, have an Animal, create a Dog and store it inside a variable of type Animal. We do it because often we want to refer to things in a generic way because we don't care about the specifics; we define the generic things we care about, and specific things fit the mold. You can drive a car; you don't need to be taught specifically how to drive a Ford or a Chevrolet - they have the steering wheel and pedals in the same place/arrangement. You can operate the generic interface. You don't care how the steering is implemented - hydraulic, rack and pinion, Pitman arm - you just care that when you turn the wheel "like this", the car goes "like that".



                          Getting back to what you asked:



                          Because Child is-a Parent is-a Object, when you make a new Child, you'll see a print out indicating the parent constructor was called and another indicating the child constructor was called. This doesn't indicate that 2 objects have been created in the memory of the computer - constructors are called in forward (root to tip) order for everything in the hierarchy starting with Object, then Parent, then Child. It's this way because the very first thing in any constructor's code, is a call to a relevant parent constructor. The first thing in that constructor's code, is a call to it's parent



                          So the runtime starts at the Child, then goes to the parent, the grandparent, great grandparent, all the way to the top of the ancestry, then comes back down, running the rest of the code in each constructor in order, top to bottom. This is why you see the printout that the Parent constructor was called, then you see the Child



                          It's all one and the same object, it's multiple method calls. Seeing two printouts isn't indicative of two objects in memory, it's one object with two methods (two constructor methods) that have been called in a recursive order






                          share|improve this answer



























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote













                            Talking specifically about your code:



                            class Program
                            {

                            public class ParentClass
                            {
                            public ParentClass()
                            {
                            Console.WriteLine("ParentClass constructor is called");
                            }

                            }

                            public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                            {
                            public ChildClass()
                            {
                            Console.WriteLine("ChildClassConstructor is called");
                            }
                            }

                            public static void Main()
                            {
                            //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                            ChildClass child = new ChildClass();

                            //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                            ParentClass childinparentbox = new ChildClass();

                            //will print that the Parent ctor is called
                            ParentClass parent = new ParentClass();

                            //At this point there are 3 object instances in memory


                            //by the way, this can't be done. Can't store a parent in a child: a parent is-not-a child
                            ChildClass parentinchildbox = new ParentClass();


                            }
                            }


                            I changed the messages to make them relevant to the point being made:



                            A constructor is just a method that is force-called whenever a new object is made. You use it to set the new object up for use, initialise properties etc. Classes are hierarchical in C# - everything is always a subclass of something, sometimes Object. Your parentClass is a child of Object, it just doesn't say. Your Child is declared a child of Parent



                            As others have noted, you don't get multiple instances of objects when you use new, you get one instance of whatever it was you asked to be created. Child classes can always be referred to/"stored inside" a variable that is declared to be a parent type. This is because things have an "is-a" relationship in the direction of Child -> Parent. A Dog is-a Animal, Cat is-a Animal, an Animal is-a Object. They don't have a relationship in the opposite direction.. You can't universally say a Car is-a Ferrari, or some Animal is-a Dog.



                            So, things chase back up the hierarchy, and you can store a Cat or a Dog inside a variable declared to hold an Animal. Animal might have a GetNumberOfLegs() method, that reports the number of legs. Cat and Dog would each return 4, Monkey would return 2.



                            One of the key tenets of object oriented programming is that you can refer to things in a generic way; all animals have some number of legs. If it's a Cat/Dog stored in the Animal, then GetNumberOfLegs() returns 4, if it's a Monkey it returns 2.. But you don't specifically need to know it's a cat, dog, monkey if all you are interested in is the number of legs. This will be covered more in coming lectures, so I don't need to get too deep into it here. I put this detail in as an explanation as to why we might even want to have a hierarchy, have an Animal, create a Dog and store it inside a variable of type Animal. We do it because often we want to refer to things in a generic way because we don't care about the specifics; we define the generic things we care about, and specific things fit the mold. You can drive a car; you don't need to be taught specifically how to drive a Ford or a Chevrolet - they have the steering wheel and pedals in the same place/arrangement. You can operate the generic interface. You don't care how the steering is implemented - hydraulic, rack and pinion, Pitman arm - you just care that when you turn the wheel "like this", the car goes "like that".



                            Getting back to what you asked:



                            Because Child is-a Parent is-a Object, when you make a new Child, you'll see a print out indicating the parent constructor was called and another indicating the child constructor was called. This doesn't indicate that 2 objects have been created in the memory of the computer - constructors are called in forward (root to tip) order for everything in the hierarchy starting with Object, then Parent, then Child. It's this way because the very first thing in any constructor's code, is a call to a relevant parent constructor. The first thing in that constructor's code, is a call to it's parent



                            So the runtime starts at the Child, then goes to the parent, the grandparent, great grandparent, all the way to the top of the ancestry, then comes back down, running the rest of the code in each constructor in order, top to bottom. This is why you see the printout that the Parent constructor was called, then you see the Child



                            It's all one and the same object, it's multiple method calls. Seeing two printouts isn't indicative of two objects in memory, it's one object with two methods (two constructor methods) that have been called in a recursive order






                            share|improve this answer

























                              up vote
                              2
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              2
                              down vote









                              Talking specifically about your code:



                              class Program
                              {

                              public class ParentClass
                              {
                              public ParentClass()
                              {
                              Console.WriteLine("ParentClass constructor is called");
                              }

                              }

                              public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                              {
                              public ChildClass()
                              {
                              Console.WriteLine("ChildClassConstructor is called");
                              }
                              }

                              public static void Main()
                              {
                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                              ChildClass child = new ChildClass();

                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                              ParentClass childinparentbox = new ChildClass();

                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called
                              ParentClass parent = new ParentClass();

                              //At this point there are 3 object instances in memory


                              //by the way, this can't be done. Can't store a parent in a child: a parent is-not-a child
                              ChildClass parentinchildbox = new ParentClass();


                              }
                              }


                              I changed the messages to make them relevant to the point being made:



                              A constructor is just a method that is force-called whenever a new object is made. You use it to set the new object up for use, initialise properties etc. Classes are hierarchical in C# - everything is always a subclass of something, sometimes Object. Your parentClass is a child of Object, it just doesn't say. Your Child is declared a child of Parent



                              As others have noted, you don't get multiple instances of objects when you use new, you get one instance of whatever it was you asked to be created. Child classes can always be referred to/"stored inside" a variable that is declared to be a parent type. This is because things have an "is-a" relationship in the direction of Child -> Parent. A Dog is-a Animal, Cat is-a Animal, an Animal is-a Object. They don't have a relationship in the opposite direction.. You can't universally say a Car is-a Ferrari, or some Animal is-a Dog.



                              So, things chase back up the hierarchy, and you can store a Cat or a Dog inside a variable declared to hold an Animal. Animal might have a GetNumberOfLegs() method, that reports the number of legs. Cat and Dog would each return 4, Monkey would return 2.



                              One of the key tenets of object oriented programming is that you can refer to things in a generic way; all animals have some number of legs. If it's a Cat/Dog stored in the Animal, then GetNumberOfLegs() returns 4, if it's a Monkey it returns 2.. But you don't specifically need to know it's a cat, dog, monkey if all you are interested in is the number of legs. This will be covered more in coming lectures, so I don't need to get too deep into it here. I put this detail in as an explanation as to why we might even want to have a hierarchy, have an Animal, create a Dog and store it inside a variable of type Animal. We do it because often we want to refer to things in a generic way because we don't care about the specifics; we define the generic things we care about, and specific things fit the mold. You can drive a car; you don't need to be taught specifically how to drive a Ford or a Chevrolet - they have the steering wheel and pedals in the same place/arrangement. You can operate the generic interface. You don't care how the steering is implemented - hydraulic, rack and pinion, Pitman arm - you just care that when you turn the wheel "like this", the car goes "like that".



                              Getting back to what you asked:



                              Because Child is-a Parent is-a Object, when you make a new Child, you'll see a print out indicating the parent constructor was called and another indicating the child constructor was called. This doesn't indicate that 2 objects have been created in the memory of the computer - constructors are called in forward (root to tip) order for everything in the hierarchy starting with Object, then Parent, then Child. It's this way because the very first thing in any constructor's code, is a call to a relevant parent constructor. The first thing in that constructor's code, is a call to it's parent



                              So the runtime starts at the Child, then goes to the parent, the grandparent, great grandparent, all the way to the top of the ancestry, then comes back down, running the rest of the code in each constructor in order, top to bottom. This is why you see the printout that the Parent constructor was called, then you see the Child



                              It's all one and the same object, it's multiple method calls. Seeing two printouts isn't indicative of two objects in memory, it's one object with two methods (two constructor methods) that have been called in a recursive order






                              share|improve this answer














                              Talking specifically about your code:



                              class Program
                              {

                              public class ParentClass
                              {
                              public ParentClass()
                              {
                              Console.WriteLine("ParentClass constructor is called");
                              }

                              }

                              public class ChildClass : ParentClass
                              {
                              public ChildClass()
                              {
                              Console.WriteLine("ChildClassConstructor is called");
                              }
                              }

                              public static void Main()
                              {
                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                              ChildClass child = new ChildClass();

                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called, followed by printing that the child ctor is called
                              ParentClass childinparentbox = new ChildClass();

                              //will print that the Parent ctor is called
                              ParentClass parent = new ParentClass();

                              //At this point there are 3 object instances in memory


                              //by the way, this can't be done. Can't store a parent in a child: a parent is-not-a child
                              ChildClass parentinchildbox = new ParentClass();


                              }
                              }


                              I changed the messages to make them relevant to the point being made:



                              A constructor is just a method that is force-called whenever a new object is made. You use it to set the new object up for use, initialise properties etc. Classes are hierarchical in C# - everything is always a subclass of something, sometimes Object. Your parentClass is a child of Object, it just doesn't say. Your Child is declared a child of Parent



                              As others have noted, you don't get multiple instances of objects when you use new, you get one instance of whatever it was you asked to be created. Child classes can always be referred to/"stored inside" a variable that is declared to be a parent type. This is because things have an "is-a" relationship in the direction of Child -> Parent. A Dog is-a Animal, Cat is-a Animal, an Animal is-a Object. They don't have a relationship in the opposite direction.. You can't universally say a Car is-a Ferrari, or some Animal is-a Dog.



                              So, things chase back up the hierarchy, and you can store a Cat or a Dog inside a variable declared to hold an Animal. Animal might have a GetNumberOfLegs() method, that reports the number of legs. Cat and Dog would each return 4, Monkey would return 2.



                              One of the key tenets of object oriented programming is that you can refer to things in a generic way; all animals have some number of legs. If it's a Cat/Dog stored in the Animal, then GetNumberOfLegs() returns 4, if it's a Monkey it returns 2.. But you don't specifically need to know it's a cat, dog, monkey if all you are interested in is the number of legs. This will be covered more in coming lectures, so I don't need to get too deep into it here. I put this detail in as an explanation as to why we might even want to have a hierarchy, have an Animal, create a Dog and store it inside a variable of type Animal. We do it because often we want to refer to things in a generic way because we don't care about the specifics; we define the generic things we care about, and specific things fit the mold. You can drive a car; you don't need to be taught specifically how to drive a Ford or a Chevrolet - they have the steering wheel and pedals in the same place/arrangement. You can operate the generic interface. You don't care how the steering is implemented - hydraulic, rack and pinion, Pitman arm - you just care that when you turn the wheel "like this", the car goes "like that".



                              Getting back to what you asked:



                              Because Child is-a Parent is-a Object, when you make a new Child, you'll see a print out indicating the parent constructor was called and another indicating the child constructor was called. This doesn't indicate that 2 objects have been created in the memory of the computer - constructors are called in forward (root to tip) order for everything in the hierarchy starting with Object, then Parent, then Child. It's this way because the very first thing in any constructor's code, is a call to a relevant parent constructor. The first thing in that constructor's code, is a call to it's parent



                              So the runtime starts at the Child, then goes to the parent, the grandparent, great grandparent, all the way to the top of the ancestry, then comes back down, running the rest of the code in each constructor in order, top to bottom. This is why you see the printout that the Parent constructor was called, then you see the Child



                              It's all one and the same object, it's multiple method calls. Seeing two printouts isn't indicative of two objects in memory, it's one object with two methods (two constructor methods) that have been called in a recursive order







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited Nov 21 at 14:12

























                              answered Nov 21 at 14:06









                              Caius Jard

                              8,29911136




                              8,29911136






















                                  up vote
                                  1
                                  down vote













                                  Another way to think of a class is as just a template for objects. i.e object instances created from this class should have this implementation logic. Creating an instance of a class, takes all that logic and converts into behavior for the object. When you inherit from some class, you're basically including the implementation logic of the parent class in the template of the child class, so you just get an extended 'template'. When you create an object instance from this template, the instance uses the child template, which contains a combination of the logic defined in the parent and the child.



                                  Normal instantiation:
                                  class logic -> template -> instance



                                  Inheritance:
                                  parent class logic + child class logic -> template -> instance






                                  share|improve this answer

























                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote













                                    Another way to think of a class is as just a template for objects. i.e object instances created from this class should have this implementation logic. Creating an instance of a class, takes all that logic and converts into behavior for the object. When you inherit from some class, you're basically including the implementation logic of the parent class in the template of the child class, so you just get an extended 'template'. When you create an object instance from this template, the instance uses the child template, which contains a combination of the logic defined in the parent and the child.



                                    Normal instantiation:
                                    class logic -> template -> instance



                                    Inheritance:
                                    parent class logic + child class logic -> template -> instance






                                    share|improve this answer























                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote









                                      Another way to think of a class is as just a template for objects. i.e object instances created from this class should have this implementation logic. Creating an instance of a class, takes all that logic and converts into behavior for the object. When you inherit from some class, you're basically including the implementation logic of the parent class in the template of the child class, so you just get an extended 'template'. When you create an object instance from this template, the instance uses the child template, which contains a combination of the logic defined in the parent and the child.



                                      Normal instantiation:
                                      class logic -> template -> instance



                                      Inheritance:
                                      parent class logic + child class logic -> template -> instance






                                      share|improve this answer












                                      Another way to think of a class is as just a template for objects. i.e object instances created from this class should have this implementation logic. Creating an instance of a class, takes all that logic and converts into behavior for the object. When you inherit from some class, you're basically including the implementation logic of the parent class in the template of the child class, so you just get an extended 'template'. When you create an object instance from this template, the instance uses the child template, which contains a combination of the logic defined in the parent and the child.



                                      Normal instantiation:
                                      class logic -> template -> instance



                                      Inheritance:
                                      parent class logic + child class logic -> template -> instance







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 22 at 12:55









                                      Jamiel Thomas

                                      111




                                      111






















                                          up vote
                                          0
                                          down vote













                                          No it will only create an instace of the child class.






                                          share|improve this answer

























                                            up vote
                                            0
                                            down vote













                                            No it will only create an instace of the child class.






                                            share|improve this answer























                                              up vote
                                              0
                                              down vote










                                              up vote
                                              0
                                              down vote









                                              No it will only create an instace of the child class.






                                              share|improve this answer












                                              No it will only create an instace of the child class.







                                              share|improve this answer












                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer










                                              answered Nov 20 at 15:05









                                              Sr.Mento

                                              111




                                              111






























                                                  draft saved

                                                  draft discarded




















































                                                  Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                                                  • 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.





                                                  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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53395800%2fdoes-creating-an-instance-of-a-child-class-create-an-instance-of-the-parent-clas%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

                                                  AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                                                  How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                                                  QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater