Abstract classes are designed to serve as base classes that define common behavior for their subclasses. They should contain abstract or virtual
methods that subclasses can implement or override.
When an abstract class contains only fields and no methods, it’s not fulfilling its intended purpose. Instead, it’s acting as a simple data
container that cannot be instantiated. This creates confusion about the class’s role and design intent.
Using the abstract keyword for a data-only class is misleading because:
- It suggests that the class is meant for inheritance and method overriding
- It doesn’t clearly communicate that the class is simply a non-instantiable data container
- Other developers might expect to find abstract methods to implement
A class that only holds data and should not be instantiated is better served by using a private or protected constructor. This approach clearly
communicates the design intent and prevents instantiation without the misleading implications of the abstract keyword.
What is the potential impact?
This design issue can lead to confusion among team members about the class’s intended purpose and usage patterns. It may result in incorrect
assumptions about inheritance relationships and make the codebase harder to understand and maintain.
