Generic programming is defined in Musser & Stepanov (1989) as follows,
Generic programming centers around the idea of abstracting from concrete, efficient algorithms to obtain generic algorithms that can be combined with different data representations to produce a wide variety of useful software.
Note that although this approach often utilizes language features of compile-time genericity/templates, it is in fact independent of particular language-technical details. Generic programming pioneer Alexander Stepanov wrote,
Generic programming is about abstracting and classifying algorithms and data structures. It gets its inspiration from Knuth and not from type theory. Its goal is the incremental construction of systematic catalogs of useful, efficient and abstract algorithms and data structures. Such an undertaking is still a dream.
Following Stepanov, we can define generic programming without mentioning language features: Lift algorithms and data structures from concrete examples to their most general and abstract form.
When creating container classes in statically typed languages, it is inconvenient to write specific implementations for each datatype contained, especially if the code for each datatype is virtually identical. For example, in C++, this duplication of code can be circumvented by defining a class template:
A generic formal parameter is a value, a variable, a constant, a type, a subprogram, or even an instance of another, designated, generic unit. For generic formal types, the syntax distinguishes between discrete, floating-point, fixed-point, access (pointer) types, etc. Some formal parameters can have default values.
The language syntax allows precise specification of constraints on generic formal parameters. For example, it is possible to specify that a generic formal type will only accept a modular type as the actual. It is also possible to express constraints between generic formal parameters; for example:
In this example, Array_Type is constrained by both Index_Type and Element_Type. When instantiating the unit, the programmer must pass an actual array type that satisfies these constraints.
The disadvantage of this fine-grained control is a complicated syntax, but, because all generic formal parameters are completely defined in the specification, the compiler can instantiate generics without looking at the body of the generic.
Unlike C++, Ada does not allow specialised generic instances, and requires that all generics be instantiated explicitly. These rules have several consequences:
Specializations of this function template, instantiations with specific types, can be called just like an ordinary function:
A powerful feature of C++'s templates is template specialization. This allows alternative implementations to be provided based on certain characteristics of the parameterized type that is being instantiated. Template specialization has two purposes: to allow certain forms of optimization, and to reduce code bloat.
For example, consider a
sort() template function. One of the primary activities that such a function does is to swap or exchange the values in two of the container's positions. If the values are large (in terms of the number of bytes it takes to store each of them), then it is often quicker to first build a separate list of pointers to the objects, sort those pointers, and then build the final sorted sequence. If the values are quite small however it is usually fastest to just swap the values in-place as needed. Furthermore, if the parameterized type is already of some pointer-type, then there is no need to build a separate pointer array. Template specialization allows the template creator to write different implementations and to specify the characteristics that the parameterized type(s) must have for each implementation to be used.
However, templates are generally considered an improvement over macros for these purposes. Templates are type-safe. Templates avoid some of the common errors found in code that makes heavy use of function-like macros, such as evaluating parameters with side effects twice. Perhaps most importantly, templates were designed to be applicable to much larger problems than macros.
There are four primary drawbacks to the use of templates: supported features, compiler support, poor error messages (usually with pre C++20 SFINAE), and code bloat:
So, can derivation be used to reduce the problem of code replicated because templates are used? This would involve deriving a template from an ordinary class. This technique proved successful in curbing code bloat in real use. People who do not use a technique like this have found that replicated code can cost megabytes of code space even in moderate size programs.
The extra instantiations generated by templates can also cause some debuggers to have difficulty working gracefully with templates. For example, setting a debug breakpoint within a template from a source file may either miss setting the breakpoint in the actual instantiation desired or may set a breakpoint in every place the template is instantiated.
The D programming language supports templates based in design on C++. Most C++ template idioms will carry over to D without alteration, but D adds some additional functionality:
A function that accepts only input ranges can then use the above template in a template constraint:
In addition to template metaprogramming, D also provides several features to enable compile-time code generation:
Combining the above allows generating code based on existing declarations. For example, D serialization frameworks can enumerate a type's members and generate specialized functions for each serialized type to perform serialization and deserialization. User-defined attributes could further indicate serialization rules.
A notable behavior of static members in a generic .NET class is static member instantiation per run-time type (see example below).
Delphi's Object Pascal dialect acquired generics in the Delphi 2007 release, initially only with the (now discontinued) .NET compiler before being added to the native code in the Delphi 2009 release. The semantics and capabilities of Delphi generics are largely modelled on those had by generics in .NET 2.0, though the implementation is by necessity quite different. Here's a more or less direct translation of the first C# example shown above:
As with C#, methods as well as whole types can have one or more type parameters. In the example, TArray is a generic type (defined by the language) and MakeAtLeast a generic method. The available constraints are very similar to the available constraints in C#: any value type, any class, a specific class or interface, and a class with a parameterless constructor. Multiple constraints act as an additive union.
Clean offers generic programming based PolyP and the generic Haskell as supported by the GHC>=6.0. It parametrizes by kind as those but offers overloading.