Take the 2-minute tour ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Been calling them "implementers", but it seems weird to me.

/// <summary>
/// Implementers should implement this.  Derp
/// </summary>
protected abstract void InternalExecute();

A point of clarification, I'm interested in what to call the people who create child classes, not the child classes themselves.

"Hey, you there" not "that thing there."

share|improve this question
    
Calling them developers seems reasonable no? –  Chris Nov 23 '10 at 19:44
    
OPs who wrote this question (@Will) might consider marking the MSDN reference to "you" as best answer for this question. –  Yar Nov 24 '10 at 6:32
add comment

10 Answers

MSDN class documentation often uses "you" to refer to developers.

When you inherit from WebRequest, you must override the following members...

You do not typically inherit from ButtonBase. To create your own button class, inherit from the Button, CheckBox, or RadioButton class....

You can also simply state what the requirements are for descendent classes. It is implied that developers are your audience.

Classes that inherit IDbConnection must implement all inherited members, and typically define additional members to add provider-specific functionality.

In your example, instead of "Implementers should implement this", write "Descendent classes must override InternalExecute to..." or "In descendent classes, you must override InternalExecute to...".

share|improve this answer
    
EXCELLENT point. I was kind of going with the "you don't need to talk about people" idea, but yeah, this is nice too. –  Yar Nov 24 '10 at 6:28
add comment

I usually say children, child classes or inheritors.

Its not that important; people are going to understand what you mean by Implementers anyway.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for Children. For me, it makes more sense to read it that way then by referencing the person using the base class –  Rachel Nov 23 '10 at 16:47
    
Child classes sounds correct to me. –  Adam Crossland Nov 23 '10 at 16:48
    
+1 for inheritors. –  Anna Lear Nov 23 '10 at 16:55
2  
"Derived classes" –  Bruce Alderson Nov 23 '10 at 17:08
1  
If your class is 'Window', are children sub-classes of Window or Child Windows? Also, the OP is after a name for the programmer, not the code. –  JBRWilkinson Nov 23 '10 at 18:24
show 2 more comments

Descendants? (need couple more chars)

share|improve this answer
    
+1 I like descendants too –  rmx Nov 23 '10 at 16:49
    
I think this is a great term. –  Dynamic Jun 19 '12 at 15:24
add comment

subclasses or classes that extend ThisInterfaceor classes that implement InternalExecute

share|improve this answer
    
"Subclasses" is good... I wonder if "Subclassers" is a word, or if I would have to longform it as "Thoe who create subclasses"? –  Will Nov 23 '10 at 17:08
    
+1 This is similiar to the Javadoc style, which I find very readable for the most part. –  Michael K Nov 23 '10 at 17:48
    
@Will, with all due respect, who cares about the people-who-are-creating subclasses? It's much easier to use passive voice and say, "subclasses must do this" rather than "people who write subclasses should do this." People and subclasses are both valid entities. The former doesn't ADD anything to the comments. –  Yar Nov 24 '10 at 6:26
    
I retract that, to some extent: I like the answer below, that uses "you." –  Yar Nov 24 '10 at 6:34
add comment

You shouldn't mention the people who code in the doc, but how the base class should be extended, hence, you could call them "implementations"

ie

This base class defines the basic structure of the blah blah blah. Implementations should do XYZ to make it work....

Or

Implementations of this class should also consider...

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry, I'm looking for how to refer to the developers that are extending a base class, not the child classes. –  Will Nov 23 '10 at 19:19
    
I have updated the answer, probably now it makes sense. –  OscarRyz Nov 23 '10 at 21:06
    
I think the word you are looking for is "shouldn't" rather than "don't". –  Bruce Alderman Nov 23 '10 at 21:11
    
@Bruce :P Thank, sometime I wakeup with english mode turned off :-/ –  OscarRyz Nov 23 '10 at 23:07
add comment

You can call them extenders or subclassers.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I typically say child class. When talking about inheritance, implementers would be a little confusing to me because it makes me think that the class is implementing an Interface, which is different from class inheritance.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm talking to the developers, not about what they develop. –  Will Nov 23 '10 at 19:19
add comment

If I had to write documentation speaking directly to a person writing code that extends my base class, I would call them a Developer, End User, or Consumer.

That being said, I think it's generally a bad idea to reference the people using your code in the comments. Comments should state what the code does, not what the developer using it should be doing.

share|improve this answer
1  
Then how do you inform the target audience, developers who are extending your code, about things they should be aware of? –  Will Nov 23 '10 at 19:18
1  
@Will--your comments are implicitly aimed at them. I mean, have you ever read code with implementation suggestions in it and NOT assumed it was meant for you? –  Dan Ray Nov 23 '10 at 19:51
2  
How about: "Descendant classes should implement this. Yes that means YOU."; to stress the point, in case the reader is confused.. :) –  dr Hannibal Lecter Nov 23 '10 at 20:20
    
+1 for your first sentence. –  Robert Harvey Nov 23 '10 at 23:56
add comment

I want to offer an out-of-the-box idea: let's delete this comment altogether and then we don't have a problem how to phrase it.

The keyword abstract already says it all: one of the derived classes must implement the method. If that's the intent you want to communicate to the implementors of those derived classes, then you're already using this particular language element appropriately.

share|improve this answer
    
Kinda misses the point. –  Robert Harvey Nov 23 '10 at 23:57
    
Comedy should marked as community wiki OR be funny. –  Yar Nov 24 '10 at 6:36
add comment

Users

IE, users of the base class.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.