Is downcasting (i.e. casting to derived type) ALWAYS wrong? [closed]

Question

What is your perspective on downcasting? Is it ALWAYS wrong, or are there cases where it is acceptable, or even preferable or desired?

Is there some good measure/guideline we can give that tells us when downcasting is "evil", and when it's "ok"/"good"?

(I know a similar question exists, but that question spins out from a concrete case. I'd like to have it answered from a general design perspective.)

Answer 1

No, it's definitely not always wrong.

For example, suppose in C# you have an event handler - that gets given a sender parameter, representing the originator of the event. Now you might hook up that event handler to several buttons, but you know they're always buttons. It's reasonable to cast sender to Button within that code.

That's just one example - there are plenty of others. Sometimes it's just a way around a slightly awkward API, other times it comes out of not being able to express the type within the normal type system cleanly. For example, you might have a Dictionary<Type, object> appropriate encapsulated, with generic methods to add and retrieve values - where the value of an entry is of the type of the key. A cast is entirely natural here - you can see that it will always work, and it's giving more type safety to the rest of the system.

Answer 2

It's never an ideal solution and should be avoided wherever possible - unless the alternative would be worse. Sometimes, it cannot be avoided, e.g. pre-Generics Java's Standard API library had lots of classes (most prominently the collections) that required downcasting to be useful. And sometimes, changing the design to avoid the downcast would complicate it significantly, so that the downcast is the better solution.