Object Oriented Programming in R, Part 1: The Basics

Published Mar 12, 2018Last updated Mar 21, 2018
Object Oriented Programming in R, Part 1: The Basics

Originally posted in otrenav.com.

The main purpose of object-oriented programming (OOP) is to efficiently manage complexity. It is a way of organizing code and data such that you can develop well delimited abstractions with controlled dependencies and evolve a complex system in a controlled manner.

R has various object models, also known as object-oriented systems, so OOP in R can be a bit intimidating at first. The goal of this series of posts is to help you understand how to implement the basic building blocks of object-oriented programs in R.

“Part 1: The Basics” (this post) goes into OOP basics. The upcoming posts in this series will show how to build a basic example with the three different object models we will discuss in the series. As I finish them during the next couple of days, I’ll publish them on my personal website.

For a more in-depth treatment of this topic, as well as others, you may want to look at my recent book “R Programming by Example” published by Packt. If you do, please publish your opinion about it on Amazon's book page. I really appreciate it, and every comment can go a long way. Also, if you have any questions or feedback, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

What is object-oriented programming (OOP)?

As mentioned before, OOP is a programming technique whose purpose is to manage complexity efficiently with the use of abstractions. In OOP, abstractions are called objects and they offer “behavior” in response to “messages.”

The “behavior” they offer to other objects is catalogued in an interface, which is implemented in these object’s public methods. Objects request “behavior” from other objects, and when they do, they are are said to depend on them. The “messages” sent between all these objects and the associated behavior is what makes an object-oriented system useful.

Before we go any further, let’s explain more about these concepts. An object is an entity in abstract form. For example, integers, cars, dogs, buildings, credit cards, and cryptocurrencies, could all be objects in an object-oriented system.

An object is a well defined idea of something, and different kinds of objects have different kinds of behavior associated with them. For example, the idea of an integer is not associated to any specific number, just as the idea of a car is not associated with any specific model or brand.

However, an instance of an integer has a specific value attached to it, just as an instance of a car has a specific model and brand. For those familiar with statistics, think of a random variable as an object, and a realization of that random variable as an instance.

OOP is a way of thinking of programs as interactions among objects instead of steps through an algorithm. For the algorithmically inclined, you can still understand an object-oriented system as a big algorithm with lots of functions calling each other, but for large enough systems, this will not be a fruitful or enjoyable process.

When dealing with object-oriented systems, you’re better off just trying to understand a part of the system by itself and clearly define how it should communicate with other parts. Trying to fully understand a complex object-oriented system can prove to be quite challenging.

Important concepts behind object-oriented languages

There are many ways to implement the object model in object-oriented languages, and the specific way it is implemented implies different sets of properties for the language.

Some of these properties are encapsulation, polymorphism, generics (parametric polymorphism), hierarchies (inheritance and composition), subtyping, and several others.

They are powerful high level ideas with precise definitions that impose restrictions on how a language should behave. In the following subsections, I will give a high-level explanation of encapsulation, polymorphism (with and without generics), and hierarchies.

An interesting exercise is to find languages that are considered to be object-oriented, yet don’t use one or more of these properties. For example, the class concept is unnecessary, as seen with prototype-based languages like JavaScript.

Subtyping is also unnecessary, since it doesn’t make sense in dynamically typed languages like R or Python. I could go on and on, but you get the idea: there does not exist a single language that has all of these properties.

Furthermore, the only property that is found in all object-oriented languages is polymorphism. That’s why people commonly say that polymorphism is the essence of OOP.


Encapsulation is about hiding an object’s “internals” from other objects. As the designer of the C++ language, Bjarne Stroustrup, put it: encapsulation hides information not to faciliate fraud, but to prevent mistakes.

By giving other objects a minimal catalogue of messages (public methods) that they can send to an object, we are helping them commit fewer mistakes and avoid getting their hands in tasks that do not pertain to them. This in turn helps with decoupling objects from themselves and providing cohesiveness within objects.

A common way to think about encapsulation is like when you go to a restaurant: you “message” the waiter with what you want, and the waiter then delegates the cooking of what you requested to the restaurant’s chef.

You have no business in going into the restaurant’s kitchen and telling the chef how to cook your meal, and if the chef wants to change the way he cooks a certain dish, she can do so without you having to know about it.

It’s the same with objects — they should not get inside another object and tell it how to do its job. This sounds simple enough, but in practice it’s very easy to violate this principle. Technically, the process of separating the interface from the implementation is called encapsulation.


Polymorphism is perhaps the most powerful feature of OOP languages, and it is what distinguishes OOP from more traditional programming with abstract data types. Polymorphism literally means “many forms,” and that’s exactly what it is used for in OOP. The same name will denote different meanings depending on the context in which it is used, just as our natural languages. This allows for much cleaner and understandable abstractions, as well as code.

Loosely speaking, polymorphism can be implemented into different ways, from inside or from outside objects. When it’s implemented from inside objects, each object must provide a definition on how it will deal with a given message.

This is the most common method, and you can find it in Java or Python. R is very special in this manner and implements the outside approach, formally know as generics or parametric polymorphism.

This way of programming can be frustrating for people who have only used the inside approach, but it can be very flexible.

The outside approach lets you define a generic method or function for types of objects that you have not yet defined and may never do. Java and Python can also implement this type of polymorphism, but it’s not their nature, just as R can also implement the inside, but that’s not its nature either.


Hierarchies can be formed in two ways: inheritance and composition. The idea of inheritance is to form new classes as specialized versions of old ones. The specialized classes are subclasses and the more general ones are superclasses.

This is type of relationship is often refered to as an is-a type of relationship, since a subclass is a type of the superclass. For example, a lion is a type of animal, so animal would be the superclass and lion the subclass.

Another type of relationship is known as the has-a relation. This means that one class has instances of another class. For example, a car has wheels. We wouldn’t say that wheels are a type of car, so there’s no inheritance there, but that they are part of a car, which implies composition.

There are cases where it’s not so clear whether a relation should be modeled with inheritance or with composition. In those cases, you should decide to move along with composition.

In general, people agree that composition is a much more flexible way of designing a system, and you should only use inheritance if you must model the specialization of a class.

Note that when you design your systems with composition instead of inheritance, your objects take on different roles and they become more tool-like.

That’s a good thing because you can easily plug them into each other and replace them as necessary. You also usually end up with larger numbers of smaller classes, which is normally a good thing.

The two main sources of confusion for OOP in R

People who are new to OOP in R often find themselves being very confused, especially if they come from more mainstream languages like Python, Java, or JavaScript.

The two main sources of confusion are that R has various object models and that it implements parametric polymorphism instead of the more common form of polymorphism found in those languages. I will explain more about both of these sources of confusion below.

Various object models

The way you work with OOP in R is different from what you may see in other languages, such as Python, Java, C++, and many others. For the most part, these languages have a single object model that all people use. In the case of R, note that I have been writing “object models,” in plural. That’s because R is a very special language and it has various ways of implementing object-oriented systems. Specifically, R has the following object models: S3, S4, Reference Classes, R6, and Base Types.

In this series of posts we will look at S3, S4, and R6, since those are the most used object models in R.

Generic functions

Another big difference with popular object-oriented languages like the ones mentioned before, is that R implements parametric polymporhism, also known as generic functions, which implies that methods belong to functions, not classes. Generic functions are a system for allowing the same name to be used for many different functions, with many different sets of arguments, from many different classes. This means that the syntax to call a class’s method is different from the normally “chained” syntax you find in other languages (normally implemented with a . (dot) between a class and the method we want to call), which is called message-passing.

R’s method calls look just like function calls and R must know which names require simple function calls and which names require method calls. R must have a mechanism to distinguish what it’s supposed to do.

That mechanism is called generic functions, or simply generics. By using generics, we register certain names to be treated as methods in R, and they act as dispatchers.

When we call registered generic functions, R will look into a chain of attributes in the object that is being passed in the call, and will look for functions that match the method call for that object’s type. If it finds one, it will call it.

You may have noted that the plot() and summary() functions in R may return different results depending on the objects that are being passed to them (e.g. a data frame or a linear model instance).

That’s because those are generic functions that implement polymorphism. This way of working provides simple interfaces for users that can make their tasks much simpler.

For instance, if you are exploring a new package and you get some kind of result at some point derived from the package, try calling plot(result), and you may be surprised to get some kind of plot that makes sense. This is not common in other languages.

The three most common object models in R: S3, S4, and R6

As you may know, the R language is derived from the S language. S’s object model evolved over time, and its third version introduced class attributes, which allowed for the S3 object model we find in R today.

It is still the fundamental object model in R, and most of R’s own built-in classes are of the S3 type. It’s a valid and very flexible object model, but it’s very different from what people who come from other object-oriented languages are used to.

Y respects.

For example, S3 does not offer formal class definitions, which implies there’s no formal concept of inheritance or encapsulation, and polymorphism is achieved through generics (mentioned above).

It's clear that its functionality is limited in some key respects, but we, as programmers, have quite a bit of flexibility. As Hadley Wickham put it in “Advanced R” (Chapman and Hall, 2014), “S3 has a certain elegance in its minimalism: you can’t take away any part of it and still have a useful object-oriented system.”

Some programmers feel that S3 does not provide the safety normally associated with OOP. In S3, it is very easy to create an (informal) class, but it can also lead to very confusing and hard to debug code when not used with great care. For example, you could easily misspell a name, and R would not complain.

S4 classes were developed after S3, with the goal of adding safety. S4 provides protection but it also introduces a lot of verbosity to provide that safety. The S4 object model implements most features of modern object-oriented programming languages: formal class definitions, inheritance, polymorphism (parametric), and encapsulation, and that’s why it’s prefered by more rigorous programmers.

In reality, S3 and S4 are really just ways to implement ploymorphism for static functions. The R6 package provides a type of class that is similar to R’s Reference Classes, but it is more efficient and doesn’t depend on S4 classes and the methods package, as Reference Classes do.

When Reference Classes were introduced, some users, following the names of R’s existing class systems S3 and S4, called the new class system R5. Although Reference Classes are not actually called R5 nowadays, the name of this package and its classes follows that pattern.

Despite being first released over three years ago, R6 isn’t widely known. However, it is widely used. For example, it’s used within Shiny and to manage database connections in dplyr package.

The decision of what object model to use is an important one, and I will touch more on the tradeoffs among them as I show how to work with them during the following posts in this series. In general, it will come down to a trade-off among flexibility, formality, and code cleanliness.


This is was the first post in the “Object Oriented Programming in R” series. In it, we looked at basic OOP concepts, explained some unique characteristics to R’s OOP, and introduced the three most common used object models in R.

In the following posts in the series, we will create the same example using S3, S4, and R6 so that the tradeoffs among them become apparent.

For a more exhaustive and formal introduction, you should read the excellent book by Booch, Maksimchuck, Engle, Young, Conallen, and Houston, titled “Object-Oriented Analysis and Design With Applications” (Addison-Wesley, 2007).

Finally, as I said before, for a more in-depth treatment of this topic, as well as others, you may want to look at my recent book “R Programming by Example,” published by Packt. If you do, please publish your opinion about it on Amazon's book page. I really appreciate it, and every comment can go a long way. Also, if you have any questions or feedback, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Discover and read more posts from Omar Trejo
get started