Related
The creator of the Clojure language claims that "open, and large, set of functions operate upon an open, and small, set of extensible abstractions is the key to algorithmic reuse and library interoperability". Obviously it contradicts the typical OOP approach where you create a lot of abstractions (classes) and a relatively small set of functions operating on them. Please suggest a book, a chapter in a book, an article, or your personal experience that elaborate on the topics:
motivating examples of problems that appear in OOP and how using "many functions upon few abstractions" would address them
how to effectively do MFUFA* design
how to refactor OOP code towards MFUFA
how OOP languages' syntax gets in the way of MFUFA
*MFUFA: "many functions upon few abstractions"
There are two main notions of "abstraction" in programming:
parameterisation ("polymorphism", genericity).
encapsulation (data hiding),
[Edit: These two are duals. The first is client-side abstraction, the second implementer-side abstraction (and in case you care about these things: in terms of formal logic or type theory, they correspond to universal and existential quantification, respectively).]
In OO, the class is the kitchen sink feature for achieving both kinds of abstraction.
Ad (1), for almost every "pattern" you need to define a custom class (or several). In functional programming on the other hand, you often have more lightweight and direct methods to achieve the same goals, in particular, functions and tuples. It is often pointed out that most of the "design patterns" from the GoF are redundant in FP, for example.
Ad (2), encapsulation is needed a little bit less often if you don't have mutable state lingering around everywhere that you need to keep in check. You still build ADTs in FP, but they tend to be simpler and more generic, and hence you need fewer of them.
When you write program in object-oriented style, you make emphasis on expressing domain area in terms of data types. And at first glance this looks like a good idea - if we work with users, why not to have a class User? And if users sell and buy cars, why not to have class Car? This way we can easily maintain data and control flow - it just reflects order of events in the real world. While this is quite convenient for domain objects, for many internal objects (i.e. objects that do not reflect anything from real world, but occur only in program logic) it is not so good. Maybe the best example is a number of collection types in Java. In Java (and many other OOP languages) there are both arrays, Lists. In JDBC there's ResultSet which is also kind of collection, but doesn't implement Collection interface. For input you will often use InputStream that provides interface for sequential access to the data - just like linked list! However it doesn't implement any kind of collection interface as well. Thus, if your code works with database and uses ResultSet it will be harder to refactor it for text files and InputStream.
MFUFA principle teaches us to pay less attention to type definition and more to common abstractions. For this reason Clojure introduces single abstraction for all mentioned types - sequence. Any iterable is automatically coerced to sequence, streams are just lazy lists and result set may be transformed to one of previous types easily.
Another example is using PersistentMap interface for structs and records. With such common interfaces it becomes very easy to create resusable subroutines and do not spend lots of time to refactoring.
To summarize and answer your questions:
One simple example of an issue that appears in OOP frequently: reading data from many different sources (e.g. DB, file, network, etc.) and processing it in the same way.
To make good MFUFA design try to make abstractions as common as possible and avoid ad-hoc implementations. E.g. avoid types a-la UserList - List<User> is good enough in most cases.
Follow suggestions from point 2. In addition, try to add as much interfaces to your data types (classes) as it possible. For example, if you really need to have UserList (e.g. when it should have a lot of additional functionality), add both List and Iterable interfaces to its definition.
OOP (at least in Java and C#) is not very well suited for this principle, because they try to encapsulate the whole object's behavior during initial design, so it becomes hard add more functions to them. In most cases you can extend class in question and put methods you need into new object, but 1) if somebody else implements their own derived class, it will not be compatible with yours; 2) sometimes classes are final or all fields are made private, so derived classes don't have access to them (e.g. to add new functions to class String one should implement additional classStringUtils). Nevertheless, rules I described above make it much easier to use MFUFA in OOP-code. And best example here is Clojure itself, which is gracefully implemented in OO-style but still follows MFUFA principle.
UPD. I remember another description of difference between object oriented and functional styles, that maybe summarizes better all I said above: designing program in OO style is thinking in terms of data types (nouns), while designing in functional style is thinking in terms of operations (verbs). You may forget that some nouns are similar (e.g. forget about inheritance), but you should always remember that many verbs in practice do the same thing (e.g. have same or similar interfaces).
A much earlier version of the quote:
"The simple structure and natural applicability of lists are reflected in functions that are amazingly nonidiosyncratic. In Pascal the plethora of declarable data structures induces a specialization within functions that inhibits and penalizes casual cooperation. It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures."
...comes from the foreword to the famous SICP book. I believe this book has a lot of applicable material on this topic.
I think you're not getting that there's a difference between libraries and programmes.
OO libraries which work well usually generate a small number of abstractions, which programmes use to build the abstractions for their domain. Larger OO libraries (and programmes) use inheritance to create different versions of methods and introduce new methods.
So, yes, the same principle applies to OO libraries.
I'm currently enjoying the transition from an object oriented language to a functional language. It's a breath of fresh air, and I'm finding myself much more productive than before.
However - there is one aspect of OOP that I've not yet seen a satisfactory answer for on the FP side, and that is polymorphism. i.e. I have a large collection of data items, which need to be processed in quite different ways when they are passed into certain functions. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are multiple factors driving polymorphic behaviour so potentially exponentially many different behaviour combinations.
In OOP that can be handled relatively well using polymorphism: either through composition+inheritance or a prototype-based approach.
In FP I'm a bit stuck between:
Writing or composing pure functions that effectively implement polymorphic behaviours by branching on the value of each data item - feels rather like assembling a huge conditional or even simulating a virtual method table!
Putting functions inside pure data structures in a prototype-like fashion - this seems like it works but doesn't it also violate the idea of defining pure functions separately from data?
What are the recommended functional approaches for this kind of situation? Are there other good alternatives?
Putting functions inside pure data structures in a prototype-like fashion - this seems like it works but doesn't it also violate the idea of defining pure functions separately from data?
If virtual method dispatch is the way you want to approach the problem, this is a perfectly reasonable approach. As for separating functions from data, that is a distinctly non-functional notion to begin with. I consider the fundamental principle of functional programming to be that functions ARE data. And as for your feeling that you're simulating a virtual function, I would argue that it's not a simulation at all. It IS a virtual function table, and that's perfectly OK.
Just because the language doesn't have OOP support built in doesn't mean it's not reasonable to apply the same design principles - it just means you'll have to write more of the machinery that other languages provide built-in, because you're fighting against the natural spirit of the language you're using. Modern typed functional languages do have very deep support for polymorphism, but it's a very different approach to polymorphism.
Polymorphism in OOP is a lot like "existential quantification" in logic - a polymorphic value has SOME run-time type but you don't know what it is. In many functional programming languages, polymorphism is more like "universal quantification" - a polymorphic value can be instantiated to ANY compatible type its user wants. They're two sides of the exact same coin (in particular, they swap places depending on whether you're looking at a function from the "inside" or the "outside"), but it turns out to be extremely hard when designing a language to "make the coin fair", especially in the presence of other language features such as subtyping or higher-kinded polymorphism (polymorphism over polymorphic types).
If it helps, you may want to think of polymorphism in functional languages as something very much like "generics" in C# or Java, because that's exactly the type of polymorphism that, e.g., ML and Haskell, favor.
Well, in Haskell you can always make a type-class to achieve a kind of polymorphism. Basically, it is defining functions that are processed for different types. Examples are the classes Eq and Show:
data Foo = Bar | Baz
instance Show Foo where
show Bar = 'bar'
show Baz = 'baz'
main = putStrLn $ show Bar
The function show :: (Show a) => a -> String is defined for every data type that instances the typeclass Show. The compiler finds the correct function for you, depending on the type.
This allows to define functions more generally, for example:
compare a b = a < b
will work with any type of the typeclass Ord. This is not exactly like OOP, but you even may inherit typeclasses like so:
class (Show a) => Combinator a where
combine :: a -> a -> String
It is up to the instance to define the actual function, you only define the type - similar to virtual functions.
This is not complete, and as far as I know, many FP languages do not feature type classes. OCaml does not, it pushes that over to its OOP part. And Scheme does not have any types. But in Haskell it is a powerful way to achieve a kind of polymorphism, within limits.
To go even further, newer extensions of the 2010 standard allow type families and suchlike.
Hope this helped you a bit.
Who said
defining pure functions separately from data
is best practice?
If you want polymorphic objects, you need objects. In a functional language, objects can be constructed by glueing together a set of "pure data" with a set of "pure functions" operating on that data. This works even without the concept of a class. In this sense, a class is nothing but a piece of code that constructs objects with the same set of associated "pure functions".
And polymorphic objects are constructed by replacing some of those functions of an object by different functions with the same signature.
If you want to learn more about how to implement objects in a functional language (like Scheme), have a look into this book:
Abelson / Sussman: "Structure and Interpration of Computer programs"
Mike, both your approaches are perfectly acceptable, and the pros and cons of each are discussed, as Doc Brown says, in Chapter 2 of SICP. The first suffers from having a big type table somewhere, which needs to be maintained. The second is just traditional single-dispatch polymorphism/virtual function tables.
The reason that scheme doesn't have a built-in system is that using the wrong object system for the problem leads to all sorts of trouble, so if you're the language designer, which to choose? Single despatch single inheritance won't deal well with 'multiple factors driving polymorphic behaviour so potentially exponentially many different behaviour combinations.'
To synopsize, there are many ways of constructing objects, and scheme, the language discussed in SICP, just gives you a basic toolkit from which you can construct the one you need.
In a real scheme program, you'd build your object system by hand and then hide the associated boilerplate with macros.
In clojure you actually have a prebuilt object/dispatch system built in with multimethods, and one of its advantages over the traditional approach is that it can dispatch on the types of all arguments. You can (apparently) also use the heirarchy system to give you inheritance-like features, although I've never used it, so you should take that cum grano salis.
But if you need something different from the object scheme chosen by the language designer, you can just make one (or several) that suits.
That's effectively what you're proposing above.
Build what you need, get it all working, hide the details with macros.
The argument between FP and OO is not about whether data abstraction is bad, it's about whether the data abstraction system is the place to stuff all the separate concerns of the program.
"I believe that a programming language should allow one to define new data types. I do not believe that a program should consist solely of definitions of new data types."
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/OOP_vs_type_classes#Everything_is_an_object.3F nicely discusses some solutions.
Are there any advantages to using object-oriented programming (OOP) in a functional programming (FP) context?
I have been using F# for some time now, and I noticed that the more my functions are stateless, the less I need to have them as methods of objects. In particular, there are advantages to relying on type inference to have them usable in as wide a number of situations as possible.
This does not preclude the need for namespaces of some form, which is orthogonal to being OOP. Nor is the use of data structures discouraged. In fact, real use of FP languages depend heavily on data structures. If you look at the F# stack implemented in F Sharp Programming/Advanced Data Structures, you will find that it is not object-oriented.
In my mind, OOP is heavily associated with having methods that act on the state of the object mostly to mutate the object. In a pure FP context that is not needed nor desired.
A practical reason may be to be able to interact with OOP code, in much the same way F# works with .NET. Other than that however, are there any reasons? And what is the experience in the Haskell world, where programming is more pure FP?
I will appreciate any references to papers or counterfactual real world examples on the issue.
The disconnect you see is not of FP vs. OOP. It's mostly about immutability and mathematical formalisms vs. mutability and informal approaches.
First, let's dispense with the mutability issue: you can have FP with mutability and OOP with immutability just fine. Even more-functional-than-thou Haskell lets you play with mutable data all you want, you just have to be explicit about what is mutable and the order in which things happen; and efficiency concerns aside, almost any mutable object could construct and return a new, "updated" instance instead of changing its own internal state.
The bigger issue here is mathematical formalisms, in particular heavy use of algebraic data types in a language little removed from lambda calculus. You've tagged this with Haskell and F#, but realize that's only half of the functional programming universe; the Lisp family has a very different, much more freewheeling character compared to ML-style languages. Most OO systems in wide use today are very informal in nature--formalisms do exist for OO but they're not called out explicitly the way FP formalisms are in ML-style languages.
Many of the apparent conflicts simply disappear if you remove the formalism mismatch. Want to build a flexible, dynamic, ad-hoc OO system on top of a Lisp? Go ahead, it'll work just fine. Want to add a formalized, immutable OO system to an ML-style language? No problem, just don't expect it to play nicely with .NET or Java.
Now, you may be wondering, what is an appropriate formalism for OOP? Well, here's the punch line: In many ways, it's more function-centric than ML-style FP! I'll refer back to one of my favorite papers for what seems to be the key distinction: structured data like algebraic data types in ML-style languages provide a concrete representation of the data and the ability to define operations on it; objects provide a black-box abstraction over behavior and the ability to easily replace components.
There's a duality here that goes deeper than just FP vs. OOP: It's closely related to what some programming language theorists call the Expression Problem: With concrete data, you can easily add new operations that work with it, but changing the data's structure is more difficult. With objects you can easily add new data (e.g., new subclasses) but adding new operations is difficult (think adding a new abstract method to a base class with many descendants).
The reason why I say that OOP is more function-centric is that functions themselves represent a form of behavioral abstraction. In fact, you can simulate OO-style structure in something like Haskell by using records holding a bunch of functions as objects, letting the record type be an "interface" or "abstract base class" of sorts, and having functions that create records replace class constructors. So in that sense, OO languages use higher-order functions far, far more often than, say, Haskell would.
For an example of something like this type of design actually put to very nice use in Haskell, read the source for the graphics-drawingcombinators package, in particular the way that it uses an opaque record type containing functions and combines things only in terms of their behavior.
EDIT: A few final things I forgot to mention above.
If OO indeed makes extensive use of higher-order functions, it might at first seem that it should fit very naturally into a functional language such as Haskell. Unfortunately this isn't quite the case. It is true that objects as I described them (cf. the paper mentioned in the LtU link) fit just fine. in fact, the result is a more pure OO style than most OO languages, because "private members" are represented by values hidden by the closure used to construct the "object" and are inaccessible to anything other than the one specific instance itself. You don't get much more private than that!
What doesn't work very well in Haskell is subtyping. And, although I think inheritance and subtyping are all too often misused in OO languages, some form of subtyping is quite useful for being able to combine objects in flexible ways. Haskell lacks an inherent notion of subtyping, and hand-rolled replacements tend to be exceedingly clumsy to work with.
As an aside, most OO languages with static type systems make a complete hash of subtyping as well by being too lax with substitutability and not providing proper support for variance in method signatures. In fact, I think the only full-blown OO language that hasn't screwed it up completely, at least that I know of, is Scala (F# seemed to make too many concessions to .NET, though at least I don't think it makes any new mistakes). I have limited experience with many such languages, though, so I could definitely be wrong here.
On a Haskell-specific note, its "type classes" often look tempting to OO programmers, to which I say: Don't go there. Trying to implement OOP that way will only end in tears. Think of type classes as a replacement for overloaded functions/operators, not OOP.
As for Haskell, classes are less useful there because some OO features are more easily achieved in other ways.
Encapsulation or "data hiding" is frequently done through function closures or existential types, rather than private members. For example, here is a data type of random number generator with encapsulated state. The RNG contains a method to generate values and a seed value. Because the type 'seed' is encapsulated, the only thing you can do with it is pass it to the method.
data RNG a where RNG :: (seed -> (a, seed)) -> seed -> RNG a
Dynamic method dispatch in the context of parametric polymorphism or "generic programming" is provided by type classes (which are not OO classes). A type class is like an OO class's virtual method table. However, there's no data hiding. Type classes do not "belong" to a data type the way that class methods do.
data Coordinate = C Int Int
instance Eq Coordinate where C a b == C d e = a == b && d == e
Dynamic method dispatch in the context of subtyping polymorphism or "subclassing" is almost a translation of the class pattern in Haskell using records and functions.
-- An "abstract base class" with two "virtual methods"
data Object =
Object
{ draw :: Image -> IO ()
, translate :: Coord -> Object
}
-- A "subclass constructor"
circle center radius = Object draw_circle translate_circle
where
-- the "subclass methods"
translate_circle center radius offset = circle (center + offset) radius
draw_circle center radius image = ...
I think that there are several ways of understanding what OOP means. For me, it is not about encapsulating mutable state, but more about organizing and structuring programs. This aspect of OOP can be used perfectly fine in conjunction with FP concepts.
I believe that mixing the two concepts in F# is a very useful approach - you can associate immutable state with operations working on that state. You'll get the nice features of 'dot' completion for identifiers, the ability to easy use F# code from C#, etc., but you can still make your code perfectly functional. For example, you can write something like:
type GameWorld(characters) =
let calculateSomething character =
// ...
member x.Tick() =
let newCharacters = characters |> Seq.map calculateSomething
GameWorld(newCharacters)
In the beginning, people don't usually declare types in F# - you can start just by writing functions and later evolve your code to use them (when you better understand the domain and know what is the best way to structure code). The above example:
Is still purely functional (the state is a list of characters and it is not mutated)
It is object-oriented - the only unusual thing is that all methods return a new instance of "the world"
I've only recently come to really grasp the difference between static and dynamic typing, by starting off with C++, and moving into Python and JavaScript. What I don't understand is how a dynamically-typed language (e.g. Python) can be implemented on top of a statically-typed language (e.g. C). I seem to remember reading something about void pointers once, but I didn't really get it.
Every variable in the d-t language is represented as a struct { type, value }, where a value is union/another struct/pointer etc.
In C++ you can get similar ("similar") result if you, for example, create a base abstract class MyVariable and derived MyInt, MyString etc. You can, with some more work, use these vars like in dynamically typed language. (I don't know C++ very well, but I think you'll need to use friend operators functions to change a type of variables in runtime, or maybe not, whatever)
This result is archieved by the same thing, runtime type information, which strores info of actual type in the object
I won't recommend it, though :)
Basically, each "variable" of your dynamically typed language is represented by a structure in the statically typed language, which the data type being one of the fields. The operations on these dynamic data types (add, subtract, compare) are usually implemented by a virtual method table, which is for each data type a number of pointers to functions that implement the desired functionality in a type-specific way.
It's not. The dynamically typed language is implemented on top of a CPU architecture. As long as the CPU architecture is Turing complete, you can implement a static language on it, or a dynamic language, or something hybrid like the CLR/DLR of .NET. The important thing is that the Turing completeness of the CPU architecture is what enables or disables things, not the static nature of a programming language like C or C++.
In general, programming languages maintain Turing completeness, and therefore you can implement anything in any programming language. Of course some things are easier if the underlying tools support it, so it is not easy to implement an application that relies on a dynamic underpinning, in C or C++. That's why people put the effort into making a dynamic system that is programmable, like Python, so that you can implement the dynamic system once and suffer going through that extra effort only one time, then reuse it from the dynamic language layer.
This caught my attention last night.
On the latest ALT.NET Podcast Scott Bellware discusses how as opposed to Ruby, languages like C#, Java et al. are not truly object oriented rather opting for the phrase "class-oriented". They talk about this distinction in very vague terms without going into much detail or discussing the pros and cons much.
What is the real difference here and how much does it matter? What are other languages then are "object-oriented"? It sounded pretty interesting but I don't want to have to learn Ruby just to know what if anything I am missing.
Update
After reading some of the answers below it seems like people generally agree that the reference is to duck-typing. What I'm not sure I understand still though is the claim that this ultimately changes all that much. Especially if you are already doing proper TDD with loose coupling etc. Can someone show me an example of a specific thing I could do with Ruby that I cannot do with C# and that exemplifies this different OOP approach?
In an object-oriented language, objects are defined by defining objects rather than classes, although classes can provide some useful templates for specific, cookie-cutter definitions of a given abstraction. In a class-oriented language, like C# for example, objects must be defined by classes, and these templates are usually canned and packaged and made immutable before runtime. This arbitrary constraint that objects must be defined before runtime and that the definitions of objects are immutable is not an object-oriented concept; it's class oriented.
The duck typing comments here are more attributing to the fact that Ruby and Python are more dynamic than C#. It doesn't really have anything to do with it's OO Nature.
What (I think) Bellware meant by that is that in Ruby, everything is an object. Even a class. A class definition is an instance of an object. As such, you can add/change/remove behavior to it at runtime.
Another good example is that NULL is an object as well. In ruby, everything is LITERALLY an object. Having such deep OO in it's entire being allows for some fun meta-programming techniques such as method_missing.
IMO, it's really overly defining "object-oriented", but what they are referring to is that Ruby, unlike C#, C++, Java, et al, does not make use of defining a class -- you really only ever work directly with objects. Conversely, in C# for example, you define classes that you then must instantiate into object by way of the new keyword. The key point being you must declare a class in C# or describe it. Additionally, in Ruby, everything -- even numbers, for example -- is an object. In contrast, C# still retains the concept of an object type and a value type. This in fact, I think illustrates the point they make about C# and other similar languages -- object type and value type imply a type system, meaning you have an entire system of describing types as opposed to just working with objects.
Conceptually, I think OO design is what provides the abstraction for use to deal complexity in software systems these days. The language is a tool use to implement an OO design -- some make it more natural than others. I would still argue that from a more common and broader definition, C# and the others are still object-oriented languages.
There are three pillars of OOP
Encapsulation
Inheritance
Polymorphism
If a language can do those three things it is a OOP language.
I am pretty sure the argument of language X does OOP better than language A will go on forever.
OO is sometimes defined as message oriented. The idea is that a method call (or property access) is really a message sent to another object. How the recieveing object handles the message is completely encapsulated. Often the message corresponds to a method which is then executed, but that is just an implementation detail. You can for example create a catch-all handler which is executed regardless of the method name in the message.
Static OO like in C# does not have this kind of encapsulation. A massage has to correspond to an existing method or property, otherwise the compiler will complain. Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python does however support "message-based" OO.
So in this sense C# and other statically typed OO languages are not true OO, sine thay lack "true" encapsulation.
Update: Its the new wave.. which suggest everything that we've been doing till now is passe.. Seems to be propping up quite a bit in podcasts and books.. Maybe this is what you heard.
Till now we've been concerned with static classes and not unleashed the power of object oriented development. We've been doing 'class based dev.' Classes are fixed/static templates to create objects. All objects of a class are created equal.
e.g. Just to illustrate what I've been babbling about... let me borrow a Ruby code snippet from PragProg screencast I just had the privilege of watching.
'Prototype based development' blurs the line between objects and classes.. there is no difference.
animal = Object.new # create a new instance of base Object
def animal.number_of_feet=(feet) # adding new methods to an Object instance. What?
#number_of_feet = feet
end
def animal.number_of_feet
#number_of_feet
end
cat = animal.clone #inherits 'number_of_feet' behavior from animal
cat.number_of_feet = 4
felix = cat.clone #inherits state of '4' and behavior from cat
puts felix.number_of_feet # outputs 4
The idea being its a more powerful way to inherit state and behavior than traditional class based inheritance. It gives you more flexibility and control in certain "special" scenarios (that I've yet to fathom). This allows things like Mix-ins (re using behavior without class inheritance)..
By challenging the basic primitives of how we think about problems, 'true OOP' is like 'the Matrix' in a way... You keep going WTF in a loop. Like this one.. where the base class of Container can be either an Array or a Hash based on which side of 0.5 the random number generated is.
class Container < (rand < 0.5 ? Array : Hash)
end
Ruby, javascript and the new brigade seem to be the ones pioneering this. I'm still out on this one... reading up and trying to make sense of this new phenomenon. Seems to be powerful.. too powerful.. Useful? I need my eyes opened a bit more. Interesting times.. these.
I've only listened to the first 6-7 minutes of the podcast that sparked your question. If their intent is to say that C# isn't a purely object-oriented language, that's actually correct. Everything in C# isn't an object (at least the primitives aren't, though boxing creates an object containing the same value). In Ruby, everything is an object. Daren and Ben seem to have covered all the bases in their discussion of "duck-typing", so I won't repeat it.
Whether or not this difference (everything an object versus everything not an object) is material/significant is a question I can't readily answer because I don't have sufficient depth in Ruby to compare it to C#. Those of you who on here who know Smalltalk (I don't, though I wish I did) have probably been looking at the Ruby movement with some amusement since it was the first pure OO language 30 years ago.
Maybe they are alluding to the difference between duck typing and class hierarchies?
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just pretend it's a duck and kick it.
In C#, Java etc. the compiler fusses a lot about: Are you allowed to do this operation on that object?
Object Oriented vs. Class Oriented could therefore mean: Does the language worry about objects or classes?
For instance: In Python, to implement an iterable object, you only need to supply a method __iter__() that returns an object that has a method named next(). That's all there is to it: No interface implementation (there is no such thing). No subclassing. Just talking like a duck / iterator.
EDIT: This post was upvoted while I rewrote everything. Sorry, won't ever do that again. The original content included advice to learn as many languages as possible and to nary worry about what the language doctors think / say about a language.
That was an abstract-podcast indeed!
But I see what they're getting at - they just dazzled by Ruby Sparkle. Ruby allows you to do things that C-based and Java programmers wouldn't even think of + combinations of those things let you achieve undreamt of possibilities.
Adding new methods to a built-in String class coz you feel like it, passing around unnamed blocks of code for others to execute, mixins... Conventional folks are not used to objects changing too far from the class template.
Its a whole new world out there for sure..
As for the C# guys not being OO enough... dont take it to heart.. Just take it as the stuff you speak when you are flabbergasted for words. Ruby does that to most people.
If I had to recommend one language for people to learn in the current decade.. it would be Ruby. I'm glad I did.. Although some people may claim Python. But its like my opinion.. man! :D
I don't think this is specifically about duck typing. For instance C# supports limited duck-typing already - an example would be that you can use foreach on any class that implements MoveNext and Current.
The concept of duck-typing is compatible with statically typed languages like Java and C#, it's basically an extension of reflection.
This is really the case of static vs dynamic typing. Both are proper-OO, in as much as there is such a thing. Outside of academia it's really not worth debating.
Rubbish code can be written in either. Great code can be written in either. There's absolutely nothing functional that one model can do that the other can't.
The real difference is in the nature of the coding done. Static types reduce freedom, but the advantage is that everyone knows what they're dealing with. The opportunity to change instances on the fly is very powerful, but the cost is that it becomes hard to know what you're deaing with.
For instance for Java or C# intellisense is easy - the IDE can quickly produce a drop list of possibilities. For Javascript or Ruby this becomes a lot harder.
For certain things, for instance producing an API that someone else will code with, there is a real advantage in static typing. For others, for instance rapidly producing prototypes, the advantage goes to dynamic.
It's worth having an understanding of both in your skills toolbox, but nowhere near as important as understanding the one you already use in real depth.
Object Oriented is a concept. This concept is based upon certain ideas. The technical names of these ideas (actually rather principles that evolved over the time and have not been there from the first hour) have already been given above, I'm not going to repeat them. I'm rather explaining this as simple and non-technical as I can.
The idea of OO programming is that there are objects. Objects are small independent entities. These entities may have embedded information or they may not. If they have such information, only the entity itself can access it or change it. The entities communicate with each other by sending messages between each other. Compare this to human beings. Human beings are independent entities, having internal data stored in their brain and the interact with each other by communicating (e.g. talking to each other). If you need knowledge from someone's else brain, you cannot directly access it, you must ask him a question and he may answer that to you, telling you what you wanted to know.
And that's basically it. This is real idea behind OO programming. Writing these entities, define the communication between them and have them interact together to form an application. This concept is not bound to any language. It's just a concept and if you write your code in C#, Java, or Ruby, that is not important. With some extra work this concept can even be done in pure C, even though it is a functional language but it offers everything you need for the concept.
Different languages have now adopted this concept of OO programming and of course the concepts are not always equal. Some languages allow what other languages forbid, for example. Now one of the concepts that involved is the concept of classes. Some languages have classes, some don't. A class is a blueprint how an object looks like. It defines the internal data storage of an object, it defines the messages an object can understand and if there is inheritance (which is not mandatory for OO programming!), classes also defines from which other class (or classes if multiple inheritance is allowed) this class inherits (and which properties if selective inheritance exists). Once you created such a blueprint you can now generate an unlimited amount of objects build according to this blueprint.
There are OO languages that have no classes, though. How are objects then build? Well, usually dynamically. E.g. you can create a new blank object and then dynamically add internal structure like instance variables or methods (messages) to it. Or you can duplicate an already existing object, with all its properties and then modify it. Or possibly merge two objects into a new one. Unlike class based languages these languages are very dynamic, as you can generate objects dynamically during runtime in ways not even you the developer has thought about when starting writing the code.
Usually this dynamic has a price: The more dynamic a language is the more memory (RAM) objects will waste and the slower everything gets as program flow is extremely dynamically as well and it's hard for a compiler to generate effective code if it has no chance to predict code or data flow. JIT compilers can optimize some parts of that during runtime, once they know the program flow, however as these languages are so dynamically, program flow can change at any time, forcing the JIT to throw away all compilation results and re-compile the same code over and over again.
But this is a tiny implementation detail - it has nothing to do with the basic OO principle. It is nowhere said that objects need to be dynamic or must be alterable during runtime. The Wikipedia says it pretty well:
Programming techniques may include
features such as information hiding,
data abstraction, encapsulation,
modularity, polymorphism, and
inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
They may or they may not. This is all not mandatory. Mandatory is only the presence of objects and that they must have ways to interact with each other (otherwise objects would be pretty useless if they cannot interact with each other).
You asked: "Can someone show me an example of a wonderous thing I could do with ruby that I cannot do with c# and that exemplifies this different oop approach?"
One good example is active record, the ORM built into rails. The model classes are dynamically built at runtime, based on the database schema.
This is really probably getting down to what these people see others doing in c# and java as opposed to c# and java supporting OOP. Most languages cane be used in different programming paradigms. For example, you can write procedural code in c# and scheme, and you can do functional-style programming in java. It is more about what you are trying to do and what the language supports.
I'll take a stab at this.
Python and Ruby are duck-typed. To generate any maintainable code in these languages, you pretty much have to use test driven development. As such, it is very important for a developer to easily inject dependencies into their code without having to create a giant supporting framework.
Successful dependency-injection depends upon on having a pretty good object model. The two are sort of two sides of the same coin. If you really understand how to use OOP, then you should by default create designs where dependencies can be easily injected.
Because dependency injection is easier in dynamically typed languages, the Ruby/Python developers feel like their language understands the lessons of OO much better than other statically typed counterparts.