Pimpl idiom vs Pure virtual class interface

When writing a C++ class, it's appropriate to think about whether it's going to be

1. A Value Type

   Copy by value, identity is never important. It's appropriate for it to be a key in a std::map. Example, a "string" class, or a "date" class, or a "complex number" class. To "copy" instances of such a class makes sense.

2. An Entity type

   Identity is important. Always passed by reference, never by "value". Often, doesn't make sense to "copy" instances of the class at all. When it does make sense, a polymorphic "Clone" method is usually more appropriate. Examples: A Socket class, a Database class, a "policy" class, anything that would be a "closure" in a functional language.

Both pImpl and pure abstract base class are techniques to reduce compile time dependencies.

However, I only ever use pImpl to implement Value types (type 1), and only sometimes when I really want to minimize coupling and compile-time dependencies. Often, it's not worth the bother. As you rightly point out, there's more syntactic overhead because you have to write forwarding methods for all of the public methods. For type 2 classes, I always use a pure abstract base class with associated factory method(s).

Pointer to implementation is usually about hiding structural implementation details. Interfaces are about instancing different implementations. They really serve two different purposes.

The pimpl idiom helps you reduce build dependencies and times especially in large applications, and minimizes header exposure of the implementation details of your class to one compilation unit. The users of your class should not even need to be aware of the existence of a pimple (except as a cryptic pointer to which they are not privy!).

Abstract classes (pure virtuals) is something of which your clients must be aware: if you try to use them to reduce coupling and circular references, you need to add some way of allowing them to create your objects (e.g. through factory methods or classes, dependency injection or other mechanisms).

I was searching an answer for the same question. After reading some articles and some practice I prefer using "Pure virtual class interfaces".

1. They are more straight forward (this is a subjective opinion). Pimpl idiom makes me feel I'm writing code "for the compiler", not for the "next developer" that will read my code.
2. Some testing frameworks have direct support for Mocking pure virtual classes
3. It's true that you need a factory to be accessible from the outside. But if you want to leverage polymorphism: that's also "pro", not a "con". ...and a simple factory method does not really hurts so much

The only drawback (I'm trying to investigate on this) is that pimpl idiom could be faster

1. when the proxy-calls are inlined, while inheriting necessarily need an extra access to the object VTABLE at runtime
2. the memory footprint the pimpl public-proxy-class is smaller (you can do easily optimizations for faster swaps and other similar optimizations)

I hate pimples! They do the class ugly and not readable. All methods are redirected to pimple. You never see in headers, what functionalities has the class, so you can not refactor it (e. g. simply change the visibility of a method). The class feels like "pregnant". I think using iterfaces is better and really enough to hide the implementation from the client. You can event let one class implement several interfaces to hold them thin. One should prefer interfaces! Note: You do not necessary need the factory class. Relevant is that the class clients communicate with it's instances via the appropriate interface. The hiding of private methods I find as a strange paranoia and do not see reason for this since we hav interfaces.