The following English definition of abstraction helps to understand how this term applies to Computer Science, IT and Objects - i.e. abstraction is:
A concept or idea not associated with any specific instance
The concept is by analogy with abstraction in mathematics. The mathematical technique of abstraction begins with mathematical definitions; this has the fortunate effect of finessing some of the vexing philosophical issues of abstraction. For example, in both computing and in mathematics, numbers are concepts in the programming languages, as founded in mathematics. Implementation details depend on the hardware and software, but this is not a restriction because the computing concept of number is still based on the mathematical concept.
Roughly speaking, abstraction can be either that of control or data. Control abstraction is the abstraction of actions while data abstraction is that of data structures (e.g. datatypes [vectors & pixels]. Control abstraction in the case of structured programming is the use of subprograms and formatted control flows to simulate desired concepts of surreal features or interactions in reality or abstract world. Data abstraction is to allow for handling data bits in meaningful manners. For example, it is the basic motivation behind datatype. Object-oriented programming can be seen as an attempt to abstract both data and code.
A central form of abstraction in computing is the language abstraction: new artificial languages are developed to express specific aspects of a system. Modelling languages help in planning. Computer languages can be processed with a computer. An example of this abstraction process is the generational development of programming languages from the machine language to the assembly language and the high-level language. Each stage can be used as a stepping stone for the next stage. The language abstraction continues for example in scripting languages and domain-specific programming languages.
Within a programming language, some features let the programmer create new abstractions. These include the subroutine, the module, and the software component. Some other abstractions such as software design patterns and architectural styles are not visible to a programming language but only in the design of a system.
Some abstractions try to limit the breadth of concepts a programmer needs by completely hiding the abstractions they in turn are built on. Joel Spolsky has criticised these efforts by claiming that all abstractions are leaky — that they are never able to completely hide the details below. Some abstractions are designed to interoperate with others, for example a programming language may contain a foreign function interface for making calls to the lower-level language.
Different programming languages provide different types of abstraction, depending on the applications for which the language is intended. For example:
abstract, respectively. After such a declaration, it is the responsibility of the programmer to implement a class to instantiate the object of the declaration.
There are various methods that have been developed to formally specify software systems. Some known methods are : Abstract model based method (VDM, Z); Algebraic techniques (Larch, CLEAR, OBJ, ACT ONE); Process based techniques (LOTOS, SDL, Estelle); Trace base techniques (SPECIAL, TAM); Knowledge based techniques (Refine, Gist).
Specification languages generally rely on abstractions of one kind or another, since specifications are typically defined earlier in a project, and at a more abstract level, than an eventual implementation. The UML specification language, for example, allows the definition of abstract classes, which are simply left abstract during the architecture and specification phase of the project.
Control abstraction is one of the main purposes of using programming languages. Computer machines understand operations at the very low level such as moving some bits from one location of the memory to another location and producing the sum of two sequences of bits. Programming languages allow this to be done in the higher level. For example, consider the high-level expression/program statement:
a := (1 + 2) * 5
To a human, this is a fairly simple and obvious calculation ("one plus two is three, times five is fifteen"). However, the low-level steps necessary to carry out this evaluation, and return the value "15", and then assign that value to the variable "a", are actually quite subtle and complex. The values need to be converted to binary representation (often a much more complicated task than one would think) and the calculations decomposed (by the compiler or interpreter) into assembly instructions (again, which are much less intuitive to the programmer: operations such as shifting a binary register left, or adding the binary complement of the contents of one register to another, are simply not how humans think about the abstract arithmetical operations of addition or multiplication). Finally, assigning the resulting value of "15" to the variable labeled "a", so that "a" can be used later, involves additional 'behind-the-scenes' steps of looking up a variable's label and the resultant location in physical or virtual memory, storing the binary representation of "15" to that memory location, etc. etc.
Without control abstraction, a programmer would need to specify all the register/binary-level steps each time she simply wanted to add or multiply a couple of numbers and assign the result to a variable. This duplication of effort has two serious negative consequences: (a) it forces the programmer to constantly repeat fairly common tasks every time a similar operation is needed; and (b) it forces the programmer to program for the particular hardware and instruction set.
Structured programming involves the splitting of complex program tasks into smaller pieces with clear flow control and interfaces between components, with reduction of the complexity potential for side-effects.
In a simple program, this may be trying to ensure that loops have single or obvious exit points and trying, where it's most clear to do so, to have single exit points from functions and procedures.
In a larger system, it may involve breaking down complex tasks into many different modules. Consider a system handling payroll on ships and at shore offices:
These layers produce the effect of isolating the implementation details of one component and its assorted internal methods from the others. This concept was embraced and extended in object-oriented programming.
Data abstraction is the enforcement of a clear separation between the abstract properties of a data type and the concrete details of its implementation. The abstract properties are those that are visible to client code that makes use of the data type--the interface to the data type--while the concrete implementation is kept entirely private, and indeed can change, for example to incorporate efficiency improvements over time. The idea is that such changes are not supposed to have any impact on client code, since they involve no difference in the abstract behaviour.
For example, one could define an abstract data type called lookup table, where keys are uniquely associated with values, and values may be retrieved by specifying their corresponding keys. Such a lookup table may be implemented in various ways: as a hash table, a binary search tree, or even a simple linear list. As far as client code is concerned, the abstract properties of the type are the same in each case.
Of course, this all relies on getting the details of the interface right in the first place, since any changes there can have major impacts on client code. Another way to look at this is that the interface forms a contract on agreed behaviour between the data type and client code; anything not spelled out in the contract is subject to change without notice.
Languages that implement data abstraction include Ada and Modula-2. Object-oriented languages are commonly claimed to offer data abstraction; however, their inheritance concept tends to put information in the interface that more properly belongs in the implementation; thus, changes to such information ends up impacting client code, leading directly to the Fragile binary interface problem.
In object-oriented programming theory, abstraction is the facility to define objects that represent abstract "actors" that can perform work, report on and change their state, and "communicate" with other objects in the system. The term encapsulation refers to the hiding of state details, but extending the concept of data type from earlier programming languages to associate behavior most strongly with the data, and standardizing the way that different data types interact, is the beginning of abstraction. When abstraction proceeds into the operations defined, enabling objects of different types to be substituted, it is called polymorphism. When it proceeds in the opposite direction, inside the types or classes, structuring them to simplify a complex set of relationships, it is called delegation or inheritance.
Various object-oriented programming languages offer similar facilities for abstraction, all to support a general strategy of polymorphism in object-oriented programming, which includes the substitution of one type for another in the same or similar role. Although it is not as generally supported, a configuration or image or package may predetermine a great many of these bindings at compile-time, link-time, or loadtime. This would leave only a minimum of such bindings to change at run-time.
In Common Lisp Object System or self, for example, there is less of a class-instance distinction, more use of delegation for polymorphism, and individual objects and functions are abstracted more flexibly to better fit with a shared functional heritage from Lisp.
Although these are alternate strategies for achieving the same abstraction, they do not fundamentally alter the need to support abstract nouns in code - all programming relies on an ability to abstract verbs as functions, nouns as data structures, and either as processes.
For example, here is a sample Java fragment to represent some common farm "animals" to a level of abstraction suitable to model simple aspects of their hunger and feeding. It defines an
Animal class to represent both the state of the animal and its functions:
With the above definition, one could create objects of type Animal and call their methods like this:
In the above example, the class
Animal is an abstraction used in place of an actual animal,
LivingThing is a further abstraction (in this case a generalisation) of
If a more differentiated hierarchy of animals is required to differentiate, say, those who provide milk from those who provide nothing except meat at the end of their lives, that is an intermediary level of abstraction, probably DairyAnimal (cows, goats) who would eat foods suitable to giving good milk, and Animal (pigs, steers) who would eat foods to give the best meat quality.
Such an abstraction could remove the need for the application coder to specify the type of food, so s/he could concentrate instead on the feeding schedule. The two classes could be related using inheritance or stand alone, and varying degrees of polymorphism between the two types could be defined. These facilities tend to vary drastically between languages, but in general each can achieve anything that is possible with any of the others. A great many operation overloads, data type by data type, can have the same effect at compile-time as any degree of inheritance or other means to achieve polymorphism. The class notation is simply a coder's convenience.
Decisions regarding what to abstract and what to keep under the control of the coder are the major concern of object-oriented design and domain analysis—actually determining the relevant relationships in the real world is the concern of object-oriented analysis or legacy analysis.
In general, to determine appropriate abstraction, one must make many small decisions about scope, domain analysis, determine what other systems one must cooperate with, legacy analysis, then perform a detailed object-oriented analysis which is expressed within project time and budget constraints as an object-oriented design. In our simple example, the domain is the barnyard, the live pigs and cows and their eating habits are the legacy constraints, the detailed analysis is that coders must have the flexibility to feed the animals what is available and thus there is no reason to code the type of food into the class itself, and the design is a single simple Animal class of which pigs and cows are instances with the same functions. A decision to differentiate DairyAnimal would change the detailed analysis but the domain and legacy analysis would be unchanged—thus it is entirely under the control of the programmer, and we refer to abstraction in object-oriented programming as distinct from abstraction in domain or legacy analysis.
Abstraction may be exact or faithful with respect to a property if it is possible to answer a question about the property equally well on the concrete or abstract model. For instance, if we wish to know what the result of the evaluation of a mathematical expression involving only integers +, -, ×, is worth modulo n, it is sufficient to perform all operations modulo n (a familiar form of this abstraction is casting out nines).
Abstractions, however, are not necessarily exact, but one requires that they should be sound. That is, it should be possible to get sound answers from them—even though the abstraction may simply yield a result of undecidability. For instance, we may abstract the students in a class by their minimal and maximal ages; if one asks whether a certain person belongs to that class, one may simply compare that person's age with the minimal and maximal ages; if his age lies outside the range, one may safely answer that the person does not belong to the class; if it does not, one may only answer "I don't know".
Abstractions are useful when dealing with computer programs, because non-trivial properties of computer programs are essentially undecidable (see Rice's theorem). As a consequence, automatic methods for deriving information on the behavior of computer programs either have to drop termination (on some occasions, they may fail, crash or never yield out a result), soundness (they may provide false information), or precision (they may answer "I don't know" to some questions).
A common concept in computer science is levels (or, less commonly, layers) of abstraction, wherein each level represents a different model of the same information and processes, but uses a system of expression involving a unique set of objects and compositions that are applicable only to a particular domain. Each relatively abstract, "higher" level builds on a relatively concrete, "lower" level, which tends to provide an increasingly "granular" representation. For example, gates build on electronic circuits, binary on gates, machine language on binary, programming language on machine language, applications and operating systems on programming languages. Each level is embodied, but not determined, by the level beneath it, making it a language of description that is somewhat self-contained.
Since many users of database systems are not deeply familiar with computer data structures, database developers often hide complexity through the following levels:
Physical level: The lowest level of abstraction describes how the data is actually stored. The physical level describes complex low-level data structures in detail.
Logical level: The next higher level of abstraction describes what data are stored in the database, and what relationships exist among those data. The logical level thus describes an entire database in terms of a small number of relatively simple structures. Although implementation of the simple structures at the logical level may involve complex physical level structures, the user of the logical level does not need to be aware of this complexity. Database administrators, who must decide what information to keep in a database, use the logical level of abstraction.
View level: The highest level of abstraction describes only part of the entire database. Even though the logical level uses simpler structures, complexity remains because of the variety of information stored in a large database. Many users of a database system do not need all this information; instead, they need to access only a part of the database. The view level of abstraction exists to simplify their interaction with the system. The system may provide many views for the same database.