Why not make everything 'virtual'?

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Why C# implements methods as non-virtual by default?

I'm speaking primarily about C#, .NET 3.5, but wonder in general what the benefits are of not considering everything "virtual" - which is to say that a method called in an instance of a child class always executes the child-most version of that method. In C#, this is not the case if the parent method is not labeled with the "virtual" modifier. Example:

public class Parent
{
    public void NonVirtual() { Console.WriteLine("Non-Virtual Parent"); }
    public virtual void Virtual(){ Console.WriteLine("Virtual Parent"); }
}

public class Child : Parent
{
    public new void NonVirtual() { Console.WriteLine("Non-Virtual Child"); }
    public override void Virtual() { Console.WriteLine("Virtual Child"); }
}

public class Program
{
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Child child = new Child();
        Parent parent = new Child();
        var anon = new Child();

        child.NonVirtual();           // => Child
        parent.NonVirtual();          // => Parent
        anon.NonVirtual();            // => Child
        ((Parent)child).NonVirtual(); // => Parent

        child.Virtual();              // => Child
        parent.Virtual();             // => Child
        anon.Virtual();               // => Child
        ((Parent)child).Virtual();    // => Child
    }
}

What exactly are the benefits of the non-virtual behavior observed above? The only thing I could think of was "What if the author of Parent doesn't want his method to be virtual?" but then I realized I couldn't think of a good use case for that. One might argue that the behavior of the class is dependent on how a non-virtual method operates - but then that seems to me there is some poor encapsulation going on, or that the method should be sealed.

Along these same lines, it seems like 'hiding' is normally a bad idea. After all, if a Child object and methods were created, it seems that it was done so for a specific reason to override the Parent. And if Child implements (and hides the parents) NonVirtual(), it is super easy to not get the what many might consider "expected" behavior of calling Child::NonVirtual(). (I say "expected" because it is sometimes easy to not notice 'hiding' is happening).

So, what are the benefits of not allowing everything to have "virtual" behavior? What is a good use-case for hiding a non-virtual parent if it's so easy to get unexpected behavior?

If anyone is curious as to why I pose this question - I was recently examining Castle Projects DynamicProxy library. The one main hurdle in using it is that any method (or property) you want to proxy has to be virtual. And this isn't always an option for developers (if we don't have control over the source). Not to mention the purpose of DynamicProxy is to avoid-coupling between your proxied class and whatever behavior you are trying to achieve with the proxy (such as Logging, or perhaps a Memoization implementation). And by forcing virtual methods to accomplish this what is instead achieved is very thin but obtuse coupling of DynamicProxy to all the classes it is proxying - Imagine, you have a ton of methods labeled virtual even though they are never inherited and overridden, so any other developer looking at the code might wonder "why are these even virtual? lets change them back".

Anyway, the frustration there led me to wonder what the benefits are of non-virtual, when it seems having everything virtual might have been more clear (IMO, I suppose) and perhaps(?) have more benefits.

EDIT: Labeling as community wiki, since it seems like a question that might have subjective answers

Answer 1

Because you don't want people overriding methods that you haven't designed the class for. It takes a significant effort to make sure it is safe to override a method or even derive from a class. It's much safer to make it non-virtual if you haven't considered what might happen.