Related
I read a debate in the comments here (current live site, without comments).
Why the debate? A Dataset for me is like a relational database, an Object is a hierarchical-like model. Why do people absolutely want a "pure" Object model, whereas we still deal with relational databases, so why not combine the two?
And if we should, is there any lightweight, comprehensive framework that allows us to do that (not a heavy mammoth, like NHibernate, which has a huge learning curve)?
"Pure objects" are a lot easier to work with, the typed object gives you intellisense and compile-time type checking.
Bare datasets are very cumbersome and annoying to work with - you need to know the column names, there's no type checking possible, so if you mistype a column name, you're out of luck and won't discover the error until runtime (the worst possible scenario).
Typed datasets are a step in the right direction, but the "things" you work with in your .NET code are still tied very closely and tightly to your database implementation - not typically a good thing, since any change in the underlying database might affect your app all the way up to your UI and cause a lot of changes being necessary.
Using an ORM like NHibernate allows you to better abstract and decouple the database (physical storage) layer from your logical business model - only in the simplest of scenarios will those two be an exact 1:1 match, so you'll need some kind of "translation" or mapping between the two anyway.
So all in all - using typed datasets might be okay for small, simple apps, but for a challenging, larger-scale, enterprise-level business app, I would never recommend coupling your business object model so closely and tightly to the database.
Marc
why do people absolutly want "pure" Object model
Because you don't want your application to depend on the database schema
Well, all the reasons you give were the same as the academical reasons that were given for EJB in Java which was a mess in the past. So arent't people falling into another fashionable hype ?
As I read here:
http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx
the promise is one thing, the reality is other thing.
Where is the proof upon the claims ?
Scientifically, Complexity is tight to the Concept of Entropy, you cannot reduce the inherent complexity of things, you can just move it somewhere else, so for me there is something fundamentally irational.
Ted Newards is highly controversial because it seems to me that everybody is herding like in the old EJB days: nobody dared to say EJB suck until Rod Johnson gets out with Hibernate.
Now it seems nobody cares to say ORM frameworks like Hibernate, Entity Framework, etc. are too complex, because there isn't yet another Rod Johnson II maybe :)
You pretend that adding a new layer solves the problem, it's not always the case even theorcially, like adding more team members when a project becomes a mess because adding more programmers also mean add to coordination and communication problem.
And in practice, what it seems, is that the layers that should be independant at least from the GUI viewpoint, aren't really. I see many people struggle to do simple stuff in the GUI when they use an ORM.
I asked this question about Microsoft .NET Libraries and the complexity of its source code. From what I'm reading, writing general purpose libraries and writing applications can be two different things. When writing libraries, you have to think about the client who could literally be everyone (supposing I release the library for use in the general public).
What kind of practices or theories or techniques are useful when learning to write libraries? Where do you learn to write code like the one in the .NET library? This looks like a "black art" which I don't know too much about.
That's a pretty subjective question, but here's on objective answer. The Framework Design Guidelines book (be sure to get the 2nd edition) is a very good book about how to write effective class libraries. The content is very good and the often dissenting annotations are thought-provoking. Every shop should have a copy of this book available.
You definitely need to watch Josh Bloch in his presentation How to Design a Good API & Why it Matters (1h 9m long). He is a Java guru but library design and object orientation are universal.
One piece of advice often ignored by library authors is to internalize costs. If something is hard to do, the library should do it. Too often I've seen the authors of a library push something hard onto the consumers of the API rather than solving it themselves. Instead, look for the hardest things and make sure the library does them or at least makes them very easy.
I will be paraphrasing from Effective C++ by Scott Meyers, which I have found to be the best advice I got:
Adhere to the principle of least astonishment: strive to provide classes whose operators and functions have a natural syntax and an intuitive semantics. Preserve consistency with the behavior of the built-in types: when in doubt, do as the ints do.
Recognize that anything somebody can do, they will do. They'll throw exceptions, they'll assign objects to themselves, they'll use objects before giving them values, they'll give objects values and never use them, they'll give them huge values, they'll give them tiny values, they'll give them null values. In general, if it will compile, somebody will do it. As a result, make your classes easy to use correctly and hard to use incorrectly. Accept that clients will make mistakes, and design your classes so you can prevent, detect, or correct such errors.
Strive for portable code. It's not much harder to write portable programs than to write unportable ones, and only rarely will the difference in performance be significant enough to justify unportable constructs.
Even programs designed for custom hardware often end up being ported, because stock hardware generally achieves an equivalent level of performance within a few years. Writing portable code allows you to switch platforms easily, to enlarge your client base, and to brag about supporting open systems. It also makes it easier to recover if you bet wrong in the operating system sweepstakes.
Design your code so that when changes are necessary, the impact is localized. Encapsulate as much as you can; make implementation details private.
Edit: I just noticed I very nearly duplicated what cherouvim had posted; sorry about that! But turns out we're linking to different speeches by Bloch, even if the subject is exactly the same. (cherouvim linked to a December 2005 talk, I to January 2007 one.) Well, I'll leave this answer here — you're probably best off by watching both and seeing how his message and way of presenting it has evolved :)
FWIW, I'd like to point to this Google Tech Talk by Joshua Bloch, who is a greatly respected guy in the Java world, and someone who has given speeches and written extensively on API design. (Oh, and designed some exceptionally good general purpose libraries, like the Java Collections Framework!)
Joshua Bloch, Google Tech Talks, January 24, 2007:
"How To Design A Good API and Why it
Matters" (the video is about 1 hour long)
You can also read many of the same ideas in his article Bumper-Sticker API Design (but I still recommend watching the presentation!)
(Seeing you come from the .NET side, I hope you don't let his Java background get in the way too much :-) This really is not Java-specific for the most part.)
Edit: Here's another 1½ minute bit of wisdom by Josh Bloch on why writing libraries is hard, and why it's still worth putting effort in it (economies of scale) — in a response to a question wondering, basically, "how hard can it be". (Part of a presentation about the Google Collections library, which is also totally worth watching, but more Java-centric.)
Krzysztof Cwalina's blog is a good starting place. His book, Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries, is probably the definitive work for .NET library design best practices.
http://blogs.msdn.com/kcwalina/
The number one rule is to treat API design just like UI design: gather information about how your users really use your UI/API, what they find helpful and what gets in their way. Use that information to improve the design. Start with users who can put up with API churn and gradually stabilize the API as it matures.
I wrote a few notes about what I've learned about API design here: http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000732.html
I'd start looking more into design patterns. You'll probably not going to find much use for some of them, but as you get deeper into your library design the patterns will become more applicable. I'd also pick up a copy of NDepend - a great code measuring utility which may help you decouple things better. You can use .NET libraries as an example, but, personally, i don't find them to be great design examples mostly due to their complexities. Also, start looking at some open source projects to see how they're layered and structured.
A couple of separate points:
The .NET Framework isn't a class library. It's a Framework. It's a set of types meant to not only provide functionality, but to be extended by your own code. For instance, it does provide you with the Stream abstract class, and with concrete implementations like the NetworkStream class, but it also provides you the WebRequest class and the means to extend it, so that WebRequest.Create("myschema://host/more") can produce an instance of your own class deriving from WebRequest, which can have its own GetResponse method returning its own class derived from WebResponse, such that calling GetResponseStream will return your own class derived from Stream!
And your callers will not need to know this is going on behind the scenes!
A separate point is that for most developers, creating a reusable library is not, and should not be the goal. The goal should be to write the code necessary to meet requirements. In the process, reusable code may be found. In that case, it should be refactored out into a separate library, where it can be reused in the future.
I go further than that (when permitted). I will usually wait until I find two pieces of code that actually do the same thing, or which overlap. Presumably both pieces of code have passed all their unit tests. I will then factor out the common code into a separate class library and run all the unit tests again. Assuming that they still pass, I've begun the creation of some reusable code that works (since the unit tests still pass).
This is in contrast to a lesson I learned in school, when the result of an entire project was a beautiful reusable library - with no code to reuse it.
(Of course, I'm sure it would have worked if any code had used it...)
From what I understand, OOP is the most commonly used paradigm for large scale projects. I also know that some smaller subsets of big systems use other paradigms (e.g. SQL, which is declarative), and I also realize that at lower levels of computing OOP isn't really feasible. But it seems to me that usually the pieces of higher level solutions are almost always put together in a OOP fashion.
Are there any scenarios where a truly non-OOP paradigm is actually a better choice for a largescale solution? Or is that unheard of these days?
I've wondered this ever since I've started studying CS; it's easy to get the feeling that OOP is some nirvana of programming that will never be surpassed.
In my opinion, the reason OOP is used so widely isn't so much that it's the right tool for the job. I think it's more that a solution can be described to the customer in a way that they understand.
A CAR is a VEHICLE that has an ENGINE. That's programming and real world all in one!
It's hard to comprehend anything that can fit the programming and real world quite so elegantly.
Linux is a large-scale project that's very much not OOP. And it wouldn't have a lot to gain from it either.
I think OOP has a good ring to it, because it has associated itself with good programming practices like encapsulation, data hiding, code reuse, modularity et.c. But these virtues are by no means unique to OOP.
You might have a look at Erlang, written by Joe Armstrong.
Wikipedia:
"Erlang is a general-purpose
concurrent programming language and
runtime system. The sequential subset
of Erlang is a functional language,
with strict evaluation, single
assignment, and dynamic typing."
Joe Armstrong:
“Because the problem with
object-oriented languages is they’ve
got all this implicit environment that
they carry around with them. You
wanted a banana but what you got was a
gorilla holding the banana and the
entire jungle.”
The promise of OOP was code reuse and easier maintenance. I am not sure it delivered. I see things such as dot net as being much the same as the C libraries we used to get fro various vendors. You can call that code reuse if you want. As for maintenance bad code is bad code. OOP did not help.
I'm the biggest fan of OOP, and I practice OOP every day.
It's the most natural way to write code, because it resembles the real life.
Though, I realize that the OOP's virtualization might cause performance issues.
Of course that depends on your design, the language and the platform you chose (systems written in Garbage collection based languages such as Java or C# might perform worse than systems which were written in C++ for example).
I guess in Real-time systems, procedural programming may be more appropriate.
Note that not all projects that claim to be OOP are in fact OOP. Sometimes the majority of the code is procedural, or the data model is anemic, and so on...
Zyx, you wrote, "Most of the systems use relational databases ..."
I'm afraid there's no such thing. The relational model will be 40 years old next year and has still never been implemented. I think you mean, "SQL databases." You should read anything by Fabian Pascal to understand the difference between a relational dbms and an SQL dbms.
" ... the relational model is usually chosen due to its popularity,"
True, it's popular.
" ... availability of tools,"
Alas without the main tool necessary: an implementation of the relational model.
" support,"
Yup, the relational model has fine support, I'm sure, but it's entirely unsupported by a dbms implementation.
" and the fact that the relational model is in fact a mathematical concept,"
Yes, it's a mathematical concept, but, not being implemented, it's largely restricted to the ivory towers. String theory is also a mathematical concept but I wouldn't implement a system with it.
In fact, despite it's being a methematical concept, it is certainly not a science (as in computer science) because it lacks the first requirement of any science: that it is falsifiable: there's no implementation of a relational dbms against which we can check its claims.
It's pure snake oil.
" ... contrary to OOP."
And contrary to OOP, the relational model has never been implemented.
Buy a book on SQL and get productive.
Leave the relational model to unproductive theorists.
See this and this. Apparently you can use C# with five different programming paradigms, C++ with three, etc.
Software construction is not akin to Fundamental Physics. Physics strive to describe reality using paradigms which may be challenged by new experimental data and/or theories. Physics is a science which searches for a "truth", in a way that Software construction doesn't.
Software construction is a business. You need to be productive, i.e. to achieve some goals for which someone will pay money. Paradigms are used because they are useful to produce software effectively. You don't need everyone to agree. If I do OOP and it's working well for me, I don't care if a "new" paradigm would potentially be 20% more useful to me if I had the time and money to learn it and later rethink the whole software structure I'm working in and redesign it from scratch.
Also, you may be using another paradigm and I'll still be happy, in the same way that I can make money running a Japanese food restaurant and you can make money with a Mexican food restaurant next door. I don't need to discuss with you whether Japanese food is better than Mexican food.
I doubt OOP is going away any time soon, it just fits our problems and mental models far too well.
What we're starting to see though is multi-paradigm approaches, with declarative and functional ideas being incorporated into object oriented designs. Most of the newer JVM languages are a good example of this (JavaFX, Scala, Clojure, etc.) as well as LINQ and F# on the .net platform.
It's important to note that I'm not talking about replacing OO here, but about complementing it.
JavaFX has shown that a declarative
solution goes beyond SQL and XSLT,
and can also be used for binding
properties and events between visual
components in a GUI
For fault tolerant and highly
concurrent systems, functional
programming is a very good fit,
as demonstrated by the Ericsson
AXD301 (programmed using Erlang)
So... as concurrency becomes more important and FP becomes more popular, I imagine that languages not supporting this paradigm will suffer. This includes many that are currently popular such as C++, Java and Ruby, though JavaScript should cope very nicely.
Using OOP makes the code easier to manage (as in modify/update/add new features) and understand. This is especially true with bigger projects. Because modules/objects encapsulate their data and operations on that data it is easier to comprehend the functionality and the big picture.
The benefit of OOP is that it is easier to discuss (with other developers/management/customer) a LogManager or OrderManager, each of which encompass specific functionality, then describing 'a group of methods that dump the data in file' and 'the methods that keep track of order details'.
So I guess OOP is helpful especially with big projects but there are always new concepts turning up so keep on lookout for new stuff in the future, evaluate and keep what is useful.
People like to think of various things as "objects" and classify them, so no doubt that OOP is so popular. However, there are some areas where OOP has not gained a bigger popularity. Most of the systems use relational databases rather than objective. Even if the second ones hold some notable records and are better for some types of tasks, the relational model is unsually chosen due to its popularity, availability of tools, support and the fact that the relational model is in fact a mathematical concept, contrary to OOP.
Another area where I have never seen OOP is the software building process. All the configuration and make scripts are procedural, partially because of the lack of the support for OOP in shell languages, partially because OOP is too complex for such tasks.
Slightly controversial opinion from me but I don't find OOP, at least of a kind that is popularly applied now, to be that helpful in producing the largest scale software in my particular domain (VFX, which is somewhat similar in scene organization and application state as games). I find it very useful on a medium to smaller scale. I have to be a bit careful here since I've invited some mobs in the past, but I should qualify that this is in my narrow experience in my particular type of domain.
The difficulty I've often found is that if you have all these small concrete objects encapsulating data, they now want to all talk to each other. The interactions between them can get extremely complex, like so (except much, much more complex in a real application spanning thousands of objects):
And this is not a dependency graph directly related to coupling so much as an "interaction graph". There could be abstractions to decouple these concrete objects from each other. Foo might not talk to Bar directly. It might instead talk to it through IBar or something of this sort. This graph would still connect Foo to Bar since, albeit being decoupled, they still talk to each other.
And all this communication between small and medium-sized objects which make up their own little ecosystem, if applied to the entire scale of a large codebase in my domain, can become extremely difficult to maintain. And it becomes so difficult to maintain because it's hard to reason about what happens with all these interactions between objects with respect to things like side effects.
Instead what I've found useful is to organize the overall codebase into completely independent, hefty subsystems that access a central "database". Each subsystem then inputs and outputs data. Some other subsystems might access the same data, but without any one system directly talking to each other.
... or this:
... and each individual system no longer attempts to encapsulate state. It doesn't try to become its own ecosystem. It instead reads and writes data in the central database.
Of course in the implementation of each subsystem, they might use a number of objects to help implement them. And that's where I find OOP very useful is in the implementation of these subsystems. But each of these subsystems constitutes a relatively medium to small-scale project, not too large, and it's at that medium to smaller scale that I find OOP very useful.
"Assembly-Line Programming" With Minimum Knowledge
This allows each subsystem to just focus on doing its thing with almost no knowledge of what's going on in the outside world. A developer focusing on physics can just sit down with the physics subsystem and know little about how the software works except that there's a central database from which he can retrieve things like motion components (just data) and transform them by applying physics to that data. And that makes his job very simple and makes it so he can do what he does best with the minimum knowledge of how everything else works. Input central data and output central data: that's all each subsystem has to do correctly for everything else to work. It's the closest thing I've found in my field to "assembly line programming" where each developer can do his thing with minimum knowledge about how the overall system works.
Testing is still also quite simple because of the narrow focus of each subsystem. We're no longer mocking concrete objects with dependency injection so much as generating a minimum amount of data relevant to a particular system and testing whether the particular system provides the correct output for a given input. With so few systems to test (just dozens can make up a complex software), it also reduces the number of tests required substantially.
Breaking Encapsulation
The system then turns into a rather flat pipeline transforming central application state through independent subsystems that are practically oblivious to each other's existence. One might sometimes push a central event to the database which another system processes, but that other system is still oblivious about where that event came from. I've found this is the key to tackling complexity at least in my domain, and it is effectively through an entity-component system.
Yet it resembles something closer to procedural or functional programming at the broad scale to decouple all these subsystems and let them work with minimal knowledge of the outside world since we're breaking encapsulation in order to achieve this and avoid requiring the systems to talk to each other. When you zoom in, then you might find your share of objects being used to implement any one of these subsystems, but at the broadest scale, the systems resembles something other than OOP.
Global Data
I have to admit that I was very hesitant about applying ECS at first to an architectural design in my domain since, first, it hadn't been done before to my knowledge in popular commercial competitors (3DS Max, SoftImage, etc), and second, it looks like a whole bunch of globally-accessible data.
I've found, however, that this is not a big problem. We can still very effectively maintain invariants, perhaps even better than before. The reason is due to the way the ECS organizes everything into systems and components. You can rest assured that an audio system won't try to mutate a motion component, e.g., not even under the hackiest of situations. Even with a poorly-coordinated team, it's very improbable that the ECS will degrade into something where you can no longer reason about which systems access which component, since it's rather obvious on paper and there are virtually no reasons whatsoever for a certain system to access an inappropriate component.
To the contrary it often removed many of the former temptations for hacky things with the data wide open since a lot of the hacky things done in our former codebase under loose coordination and crunch time was done in hasty attempts to x-ray abstractions and try to access the internals of the ecosystems of objects. The abstractions started to become leaky as a result of people, in a hurry, trying to just get and do things with the data they wanted to access. They were basically jumping through hoops trying to just access data which lead to interface designs degrading quickly.
There is something vaguely resembling encapsulation still just due to the way the system is organized since there's often only one system modifying a particular type of components (two in some exceptional cases). But they don't own that data, they don't provide functions to retrieve that data. The systems don't talk to each other. They all operate through the central ECS database (which is the only dependency that has to be injected into all these systems).
Flexibility and Extensibility
This is already widely-discussed in external resources about entity-component systems but they are extremely flexible at adapting to radically new design ideas
in hindsight, even concept-breaking ones like a suggestion for a creature which is a mammal, insect, and plant that sprouts leaves under sunlight all at once.
One of the reasons is because there are no central abstractions to break. You introduce some new components if you need more data for this or just create an entity which strings together the components required for a plant, mammal, and insect. The systems designed to process insect, mammal, and plant components then automatically pick it up and you might get the behavior you want without changing anything besides adding a line of code to instantiate an entity with a new combo of components. When you need whole new functionality, you just add a new system or modify an existing one.
What I haven't found discussed so much elsewhere is how much this eases maintenance even in scenarios when there are no concept-breaking design changes that we failed to anticipate. Even ignoring the flexibility of the ECS, it can really simplify things when your codebase reaches a certain scale.
Turning Objects Into Data
In a previous OOP-heavy codebase where I saw the difficulty of maintaining a codebase closer to the first graph above, the amount of code required exploded because the analogical Car in this diagram:
... had to be built as a completely separate subtype (class) implementing multiple interfaces. So we had an explosive number of objects in the system: a separate object for point lights from directional lights, a separate object for a fish eye camera from another, etc. We had thousands of objects implementing a few dozen abstract interfaces in endless combinations.
When I compared it to ECS, that required only hundreds and we were able to do the exact same things before using a small fraction of the code, because that turned the analogical Car entity into something that no longer requires its class. It turns into a simple collection of component data as a generalized instance of just one Entity type.
OOP Alternatives
So there are cases like this where OOP applied in excess at the broadest level of the design can start to really degrade maintainability. At the broadest birds-eye view of your system, it can help to flatten it and not try to model it so "deep" with objects interacting with objects interacting with objects, however abstractly.
Comparing the two systems I worked on in the past and now, the new one has more features but takes hundreds of thousands of LOC. The former required over 20 million LOC. Of course it's not the fairest comparison since the former one had a huge legacy, but if you take a slice of the two systems which are functionally quite equal without the legacy baggage (at least about as close to equal as we might get), the ECS takes a small fraction of the code to do the same thing, and partly because it dramatically reduces the number of classes there are in the system by turning them into collections (entities) of raw data (components) with hefty systems to process them instead of a boatload of small/medium objects.
Are there any scenarios where a truly non-OOP paradigm is actually a
better choice for a largescale solution? Or is that unheard of these
days?
It's far from unheard of. The system I'm describing above, for example, is widely used in games. It's quite rare in my field (most of the architectures in my field are COM-like with pure interfaces, and that's the type of architecture I worked on in the past), but I've found that peering over at what gamers are doing when designing an architecture made a world of difference in being able to create something that still remains very comprehensible at it grows and grows.
That said, some people consider ECS to be a type of object-oriented programming on its own. If so, it doesn't resemble OOP of a kind most of us would think of, since data (components and entities to compose them) and functionality (systems) are separated. It requires abandoning encapsulation at the broad system level which is often considered one of the most fundamental aspects of OOP.
High-Level Coding
But it seems to me that usually the pieces of higher level solutions
are almost always put together in a OOP fashion.
If you can piece together an application with very high-level code, then it tends to be rather small or medium in scale as far as the code your team has to maintain and can probably be assembled very effectively using OOP.
In my field in VFX, we often have to do things that are relatively low-level like raytracing, image processing, mesh processing, fluid dynamics, etc, and can't just piece these together from third party products since we're actually competing more in terms of what we can do at the low-level (users get more excited about cutting-edge, competitive production rendering improvements than, say, a nicer GUI). So there can be lots and lots of code ranging from very low-level shuffling of bits and bytes to very high-level code that scripters write through embedded scripting languages.
Interweb of Communication
But there comes a point with a large enough scale with any type of application, high-level or low-level or a combo, that revolves around a very complex central application state where I've found it no longer useful to try to encapsulate everything into objects. Doing so tends to multiply complexity and the difficulty to reason about what goes on due to the multiplied amount of interaction that goes on between everything. It no longer becomes so easy to reason about thousands of ecosystems talking to each other if there isn't a breaking point at a large enough scale where we stop modeling each thing as encapsulated ecosystems that have to talk to each other. Even if each one is individually simple, everything taken in as a whole can start to more than overwhelm the mind, and we often have to take a whole lot of that in to make changes and add new features and debug things and so forth if you try to revolve the design of an entire large-scale system solely around OOP principles. It can help to break free of encapsulation at some scale for at least some domains.
At that point it's not necessarily so useful anymore to, say, have a physics system encapsulate its own data (otherwise many things could want to talk to it and retrieve that data as well as initialize it with the appropriate input data), and that's where I found this alternative through ECS so helpful, since it turns the analogical physics system, and all such hefty systems, into a "central database transformer" or a "central database reader which outputs something new" which can now be oblivious about each other. Each system then starts to resemble more like a process in a flat pipeline than an object which forms a node in a very complex graph of communication.
I recently had a debate with a colleague who is not a fan of OOP. What took my attention was what he said:
"What's the point of doing my coding in objects? If it's reuse then I can just create a library and call whatever functions I need for whatever task is at hand. Do I need these concepts of polymorphism, inheritance, interfaces, patterns or whatever?"
We are in a small company developing small projects for e-commerce sites and real estate.
How can I take advantage of OOP in an "everyday, real-world" setup? Or was OOP really meant to solve complex problems and not intended for "everyday" development?
My personally view: context
When you program in OOP you have a greater awareness of the context. It helps you to organize the code in such a way that it is easier to understand because the real world is also object oriented.
The good things about OOP come from tying a set of data to a set of behaviors.
So, if you need to do many related operations on a related set of data, you can write many functions that operate on a struct, or you can use an object.
Objects give you some code reuse help in the form of inheritance.
IME, it is easier to work with an object with a known set of attributes and methods that it is to keep a set of complex structs and the functions that operate on them.
Some people will go on about inheritance and polymorphism. These are valuable, but the real value in OOP (in my opinion) comes from the nice way it encapsulates and associates data with behaviors.
Should you use OOP on your projects? That depends on how well your language supports OOP. That depends on the types of problems you need to solve.
But, if you are doing small websites, you are still talking about enough complexity that I would use OOP design given proper support in the development language.
More than getting something to just work - your friend's point, a well designed OO design is easier to understand, to follow, to expand, to extend and to implement. It is so much easier for example to delegate work that categorically are similar or to hold data that should stay together (yes even a C struct is an object).
Well, I'm sure a lot of people will give a lot more academically correctly answers, but here's my take on a few of the most valuable advantages:
OOP allows for better encapsulation
OOP allows the programmer to think in more logical terms, making software projects easier to design and understand (if well designed)
OOP is a time saver. For example, look at the things you can do with a C++ string object, vectors, etc. All that functionality (and much more) comes for "free." Now, those are really features of the class libraries and not OOP itself, but almost all OOP implementations come with nice class libraries. Can you implement all that stuff in C (or most of it)? Sure. But why write it yourself?
Look at the use of Design Patterns and you'll see the utility of OOP. It's not just about encapsulation and reuse, but extensibility and maintainability. It's the interfaces that make things powerful.
A few examples:
Implementing a stream (decorator pattern) without objects is difficult
Adding a new operation to an existing system such as a new encryption type (strategy pattern) can be difficult without objects.
Look at the way PostgresQL is
implemented versus the way your
database book says a database should
be implemented and you'll see a big
difference. The book will suggest
node objects for each operator.
Postgres uses myriad tables and
macros to try to emulate these nodes.
It is much less pretty and much
harder to extend because of that.
The list goes on.
The power of most programming languages is in the abstractions that they make available. Object Oriented programming provides a very powerful system of abstractions in the way it allows you to manage relationships between related ideas or actions.
Consider the task of calculating areas for an arbitrary and expanding collection of shapes. Any programmer can quickly write functions for the area of a circle, square, triangle, ect. and store them in a library. The difficulty comes when trying to write a program that identifies and calculates the area of an arbitrary shape. Each time you add a new kind of shape, say a pentagon, you would need to update and extend something like an IF or CASE structure to allow your program to identify the new shape and call the correct area routine from your "library of functions". After a while, the maintenance costs associated with this approach begin to pile up.
With object-oriented programming, a lot of this comes free-- just define a Shape class that contains an area method. Then it doesn't really matter what specific shape you're dealing with at run time, just make each geometrical figure an object that inherits from Shape and call the area method. The Object Oriented paradigm handles the details of whether at this moment in time, with this user input, do we need to calculate the area of a circle, triangle, square, pentagon or the ellipse option that was just added half a minute ago.
What if you decided to change the interface behind the way the area function was called? With Object Oriented programming you would just update the Shape class and the changes automagically propagate to all entities that inherit from that class. With a non Object Oriented system you would be facing the task of slogging through your "library of functions" and updating each individual interface.
In summary, Object Oriented programming provides a powerful form of abstraction that can save you time and effort by eliminating repetition in your code and streamlining extensions and maintenance.
Around 1994 I was trying to make sense of OOP and C++ at the same time, and found myself frustrated, even though I could understand in principle what the value of OOP was. I was so used to being able to mess with the state of any part of the application from other languages (mostly Basic, Assembly, and Pascal-family languages) that it seemed like I was giving up productivity in favor of some academic abstraction. Unfortunately, my first few encounters with OO frameworks like MFC made it easier to hack, but didn't necessarily provide much in the way of enlightenment.
It was only through a combination of persistence, exposure to alternate (non-C++) ways of dealing with objects, and careful analysis of OO code that both 1) worked and 2) read more coherently and intuitively than the equivalent procedural code that I started to really get it. And 15 years later, I'm regularly surprised at new (to me) discoveries of clever, yet impressively simple OO solutions that I can't imagine doing as neatly in a procedural approach.
I've been going through the same set of struggles trying to make sense of the functional programming paradigm over the last couple of years. To paraphrase Paul Graham, when you're looking down the power continuum, you see everything that's missing. When you're looking up the power continuum, you don't see the power, you just see weirdness.
I think, in order to commit to doing something a different way, you have to 1) see someone obviously being more productive with more powerful constructs and 2) suspend disbelief when you find yourself hitting a wall. It probably helps to have a mentor who is at least a tiny bit further along in their understanding of the new paradigm, too.
Barring the gumption required to suspend disbelief, if you want someone to quickly grok the value of an OO model, I think you could do a lot worse than to ask someone to spend a week with the Pragmatic Programmers book on Rails. It unfortunately does leave out a lot of the details of how the magic works, but it's a pretty good introduction to the power of a system of OO abstractions. If, after working through that book, your colleague still doesn't see the value of OO for some reason, he/she may be a hopeless case. But if they're willing to spend a little time working with an approach that has a strongly opinionated OO design that works, and gets them from 0-60 far faster than doing the same thing in a procedural language, there may just be hope. I think that's true even if your work doesn't involve web development.
I'm not so sure that bringing up the "real world" would be as much a selling point as a working framework for writing good apps, because it turns out that, especially in statically typed languages like C# and Java, modeling the real world often requires tortuous abstractions. You can see a concrete example of the difficulty of modeling the real world by looking at thousands of people struggling to model something as ostensibly simple as the geometric abstraction of "shape" (shape, ellipse, circle).
All programming paradigms have the same goal: hiding unneeded complexity.
Some problems are easily solved with an imperative paradigm, like your friend uses. Other problems are easily solved with an object-oriented paradigm. There are many other paradigms. The main ones (logic programming, functional programming, and imperative programming) are all equivalent to each other; object-oriented programming is usually thought as an extension to imperative programming.
Object-oriented programming is best used when the programmer is modeling items that are similar, but not the same. An imperative paradigm would put the different kinds of models into one function. An object-oriented paradigm separates the different kinds of models into different methods on related objects.
Your colleague seems to be stuck in one paradigm. Good luck.
To me, the power of OOP doesn't show itself until you start talking about inheritance and polymorphism.
If one's argument for OOP rests the concept of encapsulation and abstraction, well that isn't a very convincing argument for me. I can write a huge library and only document the interfaces to it that I want the user to be aware of, or I can rely on language-level constructs like packages in Ada to make fields private and only expose what it is that I want to expose.
However, the real advantage comes when I've written code in a generic hierarchy so that it can be reused later such that the same exact code interfaces are used for different functionality to achieve the same result.
Why is this handy? Because I can stand on the shoulders of giants to accomplish my current task. The idea is that I can boil the parts of a problem down to the most basic parts, the objects that compose the objects that compose... the objects that compose the project. By using a class that defines behavior very well in the general case, I can use that same proven code to build a more specific version of the same thing, and then a more specific version of the same thing, and then yet an even more specific version of the same thing. The key is that each of these entities has commonality that has already been coded and tested, and there is no need to reimpliment it again later. If I don't use inheritance for this, I end up reimplementing the common functionality or explicitly linking my new code against the old code, which provides a scenario for me to introduce control flow bugs.
Polymorphism is very handy in instances where I need to achieve a certain functionality from an object, but the same functionality is also needed from similar, but unique types. For instance, in Qt, there is the idea of inserting items onto a model so that the data can be displayed and you can easily maintain metadata for that object. Without polymorphism, I would need to bother myself with much more detail than I currently do (I.E. i would need to implement the same code interfaces that conduct the same business logic as the item that was originally intended to go on the model). Because the base class of my data-bound object interacts natively with the model, I can instead insert metadata onto this model with no trouble. I get what I need out of the object with no concern over what the model needs, and the model gets what it needs with no concern over what I have added to the class.
Ask your friend to visualize any object in his very Room, House or City... and if he can tell a single such object which a system in itself and is capable of doing some meaningful work. Things like a button isnt doing something alone - it takes lots of objects to make a phone call. Similarly a car engine is made of the crank shaft, pistons, spark plugs. OOPS concepts have evolved from our perception in natural processes or things in our lives. The "Inside COM" book tells the purpose of COM by taking analogy from a childhood game of identifying animals by asking questions.
Design trumps technology and methodology. Good designs tend to incorporate universal principals of complexity management such as law of demeter which is at the heart of what OO language features strive to codify.
Good design is not dependant on use of OO specific language features although it is typically in ones best interests to use them.
Not only does it make
programming easier / more maintainable in the current situation for other people (and yourself)
It is already allowing easier database CRUD (Create, Update, Delete) operations.
You can find more info about it looking up:
- Java : Hibernate
- Dot Net : Entity Framework
See even how LINQ (Visual Studio) can make your programming life MUCH easier.
Also, you can start using design patterns for solving real life problems (design patterns are all about OO)
Perhaps it is even fun to demonstrate with a little demo:
Let's say you need to store employees, accounts, members, books in a text file in a similar way.
.PS. I tried writing it in a PSEUDO way :)
the OO way
Code you call:
io.file.save(objectsCollection.ourFunctionForSaving())
class objectsCollection
function ourFunctionForSaving() As String
String _Objects
for each _Object in objectsCollection
Objects &= _Object & "-"
end for
return _Objects
end method
NON-OO Way
I don't think i'll write down non-oo code. But think of it :)
NOW LET'S SAY
In the OO way. The above class is the parent class of all methods for saving the books, employees, members, accounts, ...
What happens if we want to change the way of saving to a textfile? For example, to make it compactible with a current standard (.CVS).
And let's say we would like to add a load function, how much code do you need to write?
In the OO- way you only need the add a New Sub method which can split all the data into parameters (This happens once).
Let your collegue think about that :)
In domains where state and behavior are poorly aligned, Object-Orientation reduces the overall dependency density (i.e. complexity) within these domains, which makes the resulting systems less brittle.
This is because the essence of Object-Orientation is based on the fact that, organizationally, it doesn't dustinguish between state and behavior at all, treating both uniformly as "features". Objects are just sets of features clumpled to minimize overall dependency.
In other domains, Object-Orientation is not the best approach. There are different language paradigms for different problems. Experienced developers know this, and are willing to use whatever language is closest to the domain.
Everyone I work with is obsessed with the data-centric approach to enterprise development and hates the idea of using custom collections/objects. What is the best way to convince them otherwise?
Do it by example and tread lightly. Anything stronger will just alienate you from the rest of the team.
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
No single person has all the answers.
If you are working on legacy code (e.g., apps ported from .NET 1.x to 2.0 or 3.5) then it would be a bad idea to depart from datasets. Why change something that already works?
If you are, however, creating a new apps, there a few things that you can cite:
Appeal to experiencing pain in maintaining apps that stick with DataSets
Cite performance benefits for your new approach
Bait them with a good middle-ground. Move to .NET 3.5, and promote LINQ to SQL, for instance: while still sticking to data-driven architecture, is a huge, huge departure to string-indexed data sets, and enforces... voila! Custom collections -- in a manner that is hidden from them.
What is important is that whatever approach you use you remain consistent, and you are completely honest with the pros and cons of your approaches.
If all else fails (e.g., you have a development team that utterly refuses to budge from old practices and is skeptical of learning new things), this is a very, very clear sign that you've outgrown your team it's time to leave your company!
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
Seconded. The whole idea that "enterprise development" is somehow distinct from (and usually the implication is 'more important than') normal development really irks me.
If there really is a benefit for using some technology, then you'll need to come up with a considered list of all the pros and cons that would occur if you switched.
Present this list to your co workers along with explanations and examples for each one.
You have to be realistic when creating this list. You can't just say "Saves us lots of time!!! WIN!!" without addressing the fact that sometimes it is going to take MORE time, will require X months to come up to speed on the new tech, etc. You have to show concrete examples where it will save time, and exactly how.
Likewise you can't just skirt over the cons as if they don't matter, your co-workers will call you on it.
If you don't do these things, or come across as just pushing what you personally like, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you'll just get a reputation for being the guy who's full of enthusiasm and energy but has no idea about anything.
BTW. Look out for this particular con. It will trump everything, unless you have a lot of strong cases for all your other stuff:
Requires 12+ months work porting our existing code. You lose.
Of course, "it depends" on the situation. Sometimes DataSets or DataTables are more suited, like if it really is pretty light business logic, flat hierarchy of entities/records, or featuring some versioning capabilities.
Custom object collections shine when you want to implement a deep hierarchy/graph of objects that cannot be efficiently represented in flat 2D tables. What you can demonstrate is a large graph of objects and getting certain events to propagate down the correct branches without invoking inappropriate objects in other branches. That way it is not necessary to loop or Select through each and every DataTable just to get the child records.
For example, in a project I got involved in two and half years ago, there was a UI module that is supposed to display questions and answer controls in a single WinForms DataGrid (to be more specific, it was Infragistics' UltraGrid). Some more tricky requirements
The answer control for a question can be anything - text box, check box options, radio button options, drop-down lists, or even to pop up a custom dialog box that may pull more data from a web service.
Depending on what the user answered, it can trigger more sub-questions to appear directly under the parent question. If a different answer is given later, it should expose another set of sub-questions (if any) related to that answer.
The original implementation was written entirely in DataSets, DataTables, and arrays. The amount of looping through the hundreds of rows for multiple tables was purely mind-bending. It did not help the programmer came from a C++ background attempting to ref everything (hello, objects living in the heap use reference variables, like pointers!). Nobody, not even the originally programmer, could explain why the code is doing what it does. I came into the scene more than six months after this, and it was stil flooded with bugs. No wonder the 2nd-generation developer I took over from decided to quit.
Two months of tying to fix the chaotic mess, I took it upon myself to redesign the entire module into an object-oriented graph to solve this problem. yeap, complete with abstract classes (to render different answer control on a grid cell depending on question type), delegates and eventing. The end result was a 2D dataGrid binded to a deep hierarchy of questions, naturally sorted according to the parent-child arrangement. When a parent question's answer changed, it would raise an event to the children questions and they would automatically show/hide their rows in the grid according to the parent's answer. Only question objects down that path were affected. The UI responsiveness of this solution compared to the old method was by orders of magnitude.
Ironically, I wanted to post a question that was the exact opposite of this. Most of the programmers I've worked with have gone with the custom data objects/collections approach. It breaks my heart to watch someone with their SQL Server table definition open on one monitor, slowly typing up a matching row-wrapper class in Visual Studio in another monitor (complete with private properties and getters-setters for each column). It's especially painful if they're also prone to creating 60-column tables. I know there are ORM systems that can build these classes automagically, but I've seen the manual approach used much more frequently.
Engineering choices always involve trade-offs between the pros and cons of the available options. The DataSet-centric approach has its advantages (db-table-like in-memory representation of actual db data, classes written by people who know what they're doing, familiar to large pool of developers etc.), as do custom data objects (compile-type checking, users don't need to learn SQL etc.). If everyone else at your company is going the DataSet route, it's at least technically possible that DataSets are the best choice for what they're doing.
Datasets/tables aren't so bad are they?
Best advise I can give is to use it as much as you can in your own code, and hopefully through peer reviews and bugfixes, the other developers will see how code becomes more readable. (make sure to push the point when these occurrences happen).
Ultimately if the code works, then the rest is semantics is my view.
I guess you can trying selling the idea of O/R mapping and mapper tools. The benefit of treating rows as objects is pretty powerful.
I think you should focus on the performance. If you can create an application that shows the performance difference when using DataSets vs Custom Entities. Also, try to show them Domain Driven Design principles and how it fits with entity frameworks.
Don't make it a religion or faith discussion. Those are hard to win (and is not what you want anyway)
Don't frame it the way you just did in your question. The issue is not getting anyone to agree that this way or that way is the general way they should work. You should talk about how each one needs to think in order to make the right choice at any given time. give an example for when to use dataSet, and when not to.
I had developers using dataTables to store data they fetched from the database and then have business logic code using that dataTable... And I showed them how I reduced the time to load a page from taking 7 seconds of 100% CPU (on the web server) to not being able to see the CPU line move at all.. by changing the memory object from dataTable to Hash table.
So take an example or case that you thing is better implemented differently, and win that battle. Don't fight the a high level war...
If Interoperability is/will be a concern down the line, DataSet is definitely not the right direction to go in. You CAN expose DataSets/DataTables over a service but whether you SHOULD or is debatable. If you are talking .NET->.NET you're probably Ok, otherwise you are going to have a very unhappy client developer from the other side of the fence consuming your service
You can't convince them otherwise. Pick a smaller challenge or move to a different organization. If your manager respects you see if you can do a project in the domain-driven style as a sort of technology trial.
If you can profile, just Do it and profile. Datasets are heavier then a simple Collection<T>
DataReaders are faster then using Adapters...
Changing behavior in an objects is much easier than massaging a dataset
Anyway: Just Do It, ask for forgiveness not permission.
Most programmers don't like to stray out of their comfort zones (note that the intersection of the 'most programmers' set and the 'Stack Overflow' set is the probably the empty set). "If it worked before (or even just worked) then keep on doing it". The project I'm currently on required a lot of argument to get the older programmers to use XML/schemas/data sets instead of just CSV files (the previous version of the software used CSV's). It's not perfect, the schemas aren't robust enough at validating the data. But it's a step in the right direction. The code I develop uses OO abstractions on the data sets rather than passing data set objects around. Generally, it's best to teach by example, one small step at a time.
There is already some very good advice here but you'll still have a job to convince your colleagues if all you have to back you up is a few supportive comments on stackoverflow.
And, if they are as sceptical as they sound, you are going to need more ammo.
First, get a copy of Martin Fowler's "Patterns of Enterprise Architecture" which contains a detailed analysis of a variety of data access techniques.
Read it.
Then force them all to read it.
Job done.
data-centric means less code-complexity.
custom objects means potentially hundreds of additional objects to organize, maintain, and generally live with. It's also going to be a bit faster.
I think it's really a code-complexity vs performance question, which can be answered by the needs of your app.
Start small. Is there a utility app you can use to illustrate your point?
For instance, at a place where I worked, the main application had a complicated build process, involving changing config files, installing a service, etc.
So I wrote an app to automate the build process. It had a rudimentary WinForms UI. But since we were moving towards WPF, I changed it to a WPF UI, while keeping the WinForms UI as well, thanks to Model-View-Presenter. For those who weren't familiar with Model-View-Presenter, it was an easily-comprehensible example they could refer to.
Similarly, find something small where you can show them what a non-DataSet app would look like without having to make a major development investment.