Since you asked why C# did it this way, it's best to ask the C# creators. Anders Hejlsberg, the lead architect for C#, answered why they chose not to go with virtual by default (as in Java) in an interview, pertinent snippets are below.
Keep in mind that Java has virtual by default with the final keyword to mark a method as non-virtual. Still two concepts to learn, but many folks do not know about the final keyword or don't use proactively. C# forces one to use virtual and new/override to consciously make those decisions.
There are several reasons. One is performance. We can observe that as
people write code in Java, they forget to mark their methods final.
Therefore, those methods are virtual. Because they're virtual, they
don't perform as well. There's just performance overhead associated
with being a virtual method. That's one issue.
A more important issue is versioning. There are two schools of thought
about virtual methods. The academic school of thought says,
"Everything should be virtual, because I might want to override it
someday." The pragmatic school of thought, which comes from building
real applications that run in the real world, says, "We've got to be
real careful about what we make virtual."
When we make something virtual in a platform, we're making an awful
lot of promises about how it evolves in the future. For a non-virtual
method, we promise that when you call this method, x and y will
happen. When we publish a virtual method in an API, we not only
promise that when you call this method, x and y will happen. We also
promise that when you override this method, we will call it in this
particular sequence with regard to these other ones and the state will
be in this and that invariant.
Every time you say virtual in an API, you are creating a call back
hook. As an OS or API framework designer, you've got to be real
careful about that. You don't want users overriding and hooking at any
arbitrary point in an API, because you cannot necessarily make those
promises. And people may not fully understand the promises they are
making when they make something virtual.
The interview has more discussion about how developers think about class inheritance design, and how that led to their decision.
Now to the following question:
I'm not able to understand why in the world I'm going to add a method
in my DerivedClass with same name and same signature as BaseClass and
define a new behaviour but at the run-time polymorphism, the BaseClass
method will be invoked! (which is not overriding but logically it
This would be when a derived class wants to declare that it does not abide by the contract of the base class, but has a method with the same name. (For anyone who doesn't know the difference between
override in C#, see this MSDN page).
A very practical scenario is this:
- You created an API, which has a class called
- I started using your API and derived
Vehicle class did not have any method
- In my
Car class, I add a method
- You released a new version of your API and added a
- I cannot rename my method because my clients are dependent on my API, and it would break them.
So when I recompile against your new API, C# warns me of this issue, e.g.
If the base
PerformEngineCheck() was not
app2.cs(15,17): warning CS0108: 'Car.PerformEngineCheck()' hides inherited member 'Vehicle.PerformEngineCheck()'.
Use the new keyword if hiding was intended.
And if the base
app2.cs(15,17): warning CS0114: 'Car.PerformEngineCheck()' hides inherited member 'Vehicle.PerformEngineCheck()'.
To make the current member override that implementation, add the override keyword. Otherwise add the new keyword.
Now, I must explicitly make a decision whether my class is actually extending the base class' contract, or if it is a different contract but happens to be the same name.
- By making it
new, I do not break my clients if the functionality of the base method was different from the derived method. Any code that referenced
Vehicle will not see
Car.PerformEngineCheck() called, but code that had a reference to
Car will continue to see the same functionality that I had offered in
A similar example is when another method in the base class might be calling
PerformEngineCheck() (esp. in the newer version), how does one prevent it from calling the
PerformEngineCheck() of the derived class? In Java, that decision would rest with the base class, but it does not know anything about the derived class. In C#, that decision rests both on the base class (via the
virtual keyword), and on the derived class (via the
Of course, the errors that the compiler throws also provide a useful tool for the programmers to not unexpectedly make errors (i.e. either override or provide new functionality without realizing so.)
Like Anders said, real world forces us into such issues which, if we were to start from scratch, we would never want to get into.
EDIT: Added an example of where
new would have to be used for ensuring interface compatibility.
EDIT: While going through the comments, I also came across a write-up by Eric Lippert (one of the original members of C# design committee) on other example scenarios (mentioned by Brian).
PART 2: Based on updated question
But in case of C# if SpaceShip does not override the Vehicle class'
accelerate and use new then the logic of my code will be broken. Isn't
that a disadvantage?
Who decides whether
SpaceShip is actually overriding the
Vehicle.accelerate() or if it's different? It has to be the
SpaceShip developer. So if
SpaceShip developer decides that they are not keeping the contract of the base class, then your call to
Vehicle.accelerate() should not go to
SpaceShip.accelerate(), or should it? That is when they will mark it as
new. However, if they decide that it does indeed keep the contract, then they will in fact mark it
override. In either case, your code will behave correctly by calling the correct method based on the contract. How can your code decide whether
SpaceShip.accelerate() is actually overriding
Vehicle.accelerate() or if it is a name collision? (See my example above).
However, in the case of implicit inheritance, even if
SpaceShip.accelerate() did not keep the contract of
Vehicle.accelerate(), the method call would still go to