Related
I am a C++ programmer trying to learn designing, as a start I am trying to get a hang of designing by giving myself a task to make a OO design for a game of chess.This is not a homework q just trying to develop some skills.
Here is the summary of what i have in my mind till now:
A "Piece" class which will hold the current position of the piece on the board.
specialized classes "Camel" "Horse" "Queen" "Knight" "Pawn" & "Elephant" which will be derived from the "Piece" class. Each of these classes will hold 2 members, "no of places allowed to move" & "rule of moving" and get methods to retrieve the same.
A base "Player" Class which will be extended by classes "BlackPiecePlayer" & "WhitePiecePlayer". Each of these classes will hold another class instance called "PieceManager" The "PieceManager" class will be the one which will determine the logic of moving around the pieces on the Board.
A "ChessBoard" class which will hold the mapping of all the pieces on the board and have access to set of rules with which pieces can be moved. It will provide interfaces to authenticate a move calculated by "PieceManager" and then make the move while updating its own mappings.
Heres a generic flow that i can visualize. A class "WhitePiecePlayer" is asked to make a move, it will ask its own "WhitePieceManager" to make a move. The "WhitePieceManager" will access the positions of pieces on board by using interfaces of "Board" class. Then it will use its internal logic to calculate a move for an piece.Each piece stores its position so it calculates position for that piece. Then authenticates the move is possible by calling a method of the Board class and then makes the move by using Board class interface..and so on..
Sorry for the long story, I am just trying to develop a feel for the design and this is what i have in mind right now, Do you think its good for a start or any suggestions on how to make it better(if it is correct)
A few suggestions
Your hierarchy of piece related classes seems reasonable (though using the proper names for the pieces Knight, Rook, and Bishop would probably be preferable to Horse, Camel, and Elephant).
I would not store the number of squares a piece is allowed to move. You would want to encode that in the "rule of movement" method if only because that can change depending on the situation. A pawn can move two squares on its initial move and then one square in subsequent moves. A king can only move one square unless it is castling.
Your piece classes will need to have some sort of method to get a list of all a piece's valid moves in order to provide those to the engine that is going to choose a move.
You don't need BlackPiecePlayer and WhitePiecePlayer classes. You just need to instantiate two different instances of the Player class and ensure that there is a "color" attribute.
A ChessBoard class is a good idea and will need to represent the positions of the pieces but it should not implement logic evaluating moves. That is something for the move engine to do.
As Javier discusses, building a chess program is likely going to involve quite a bit of effort on the design of an efficient algorithm for choosing a move. Assuming that your intention is to apply OO concepts and not to delve into the discussions about how to build a chess engine (which will often sacrifice OO purity for better performance), and assuming that you want to build something that can play well enough to be interesting, you may want to consider implementing antichess rather than regular chess. From an OO standpoint, it is essentially an identical problem, but the end result is something that plays reasonably well without investing hundreds of hours in mastering chess algorithms. That's a much more enjoyable outcome than a chess program that plays terribly.
A few comments
1) The most important thing in a chess prgoram is the algorithm to choose a move. Usually it is an alpha-beta pruning algorithm. In order for this algorithm to be efficient, the way that pieces in the board are represented is very important. You can read that in this implementation issues section of wikipedia. I'd read that for the basis of board-piece representation. There is a lot of discussion in internet, and open engines like Crazy or Fruit. I doubt that they use OO, though - I do not know if there is any Object Oriented engine in the wild.
2) What are the camel, elephant, etc? What kind of chess are you trying to represent? I am not familiar with that, sorry. Is elephant the rook and camel the bishop?
3) What is the utility of having two different classes, WhitePlayer and BlackPlayer? In which way would they be different from Player? Shouldn't you have two different instances of a Player class, called white and black?
Good luck with your project. I hope you learn a lot from it! :)
What is the frst step in OOD?
There are no steps, it's not a process.
The answer is..
(source: headfirstlabs.com)
http://headfirstlabs.com/books/hfooad/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596008678/?tag=forelangstud-20
Practice, read broadly and more practice.
Especially with others to review and comment on approaches.
Reading should cover not just OOD, but also patterns to see how others have approached common problems.
It's a lot of practice. The first thing is to get your mind around the way objects work--especially if you are a procedural programmer.
Practice making many small objects--I've literally never seen a system with too many objects; it's possible but I've never seen it. It should be really obvious when you need to put many objects into one, but it's not as obvious when an object should be broken up.
Ask an object to do something, don't ask for it's data. Try to avoid getters and setters and concentrate on methods where you ask it to do something with it's data. If you EVER see code like o.a=o.b+o.c or o.setA(o.getB()+o.getC() you are doing it wrong.
Constantly try to refactor out duplication. Rewrite your code repeatedly until there is none (or as little as possible). This will probably do more for your OO design skills than any other practice. As you get more knowledgeable, try refactoring things you didn't think you could refactor before. Anything that even looks like a pattern can probably be refactored. For instance here's a very basic example--if you had lines of code that looked like this:
a = b + c * d;
g = h + i * d;
Chances are there are HUGE refactorings missing in your code even though it doesn't look like it off the bat. You probably are missing an object that would hold a,b,c and a second instance would hold g,h,i, after creating these objects a bunch of stuff would factor into your new object. Learning to recognize new opportunities like this is critical.
I've been programming for over 20 years now, over half of it has been OO at this point and it seems like every few years I think I know it all--a year later I look back and realize how ignorant I was.
the first step is object oriented analysis - its aim is to identify the objects that make up a system and how they interact; given this knowledge you can then specify the behavior of the object (the interface methods) and then the internals (what are the required data members of an object)
The design process produces a number of diagrams - these are tools that are supposed to help with working out the details of the system :
first come a set of 'use cases' - a use case is a verbal description of a scenario that is implemented by the system (one is supposed to pick the most substantial ones); these are then used to identify the main actors and concepts which are supposed to map to the classes of a system. This understanding is then refined by working out 'object interaction diagrams' 'class diagrams' and 'sequence diagrams' sometimes state charts are used to visual state machines - these diagrams are tools to gain an even better understanding of the system, as a result you have a sufficient understanding of the system to write the class header files/class definitions. There are no fixed rules which one of these diagrams come first, these are used as appropriate.
i found the following book very useful :
OBJECT-ORIENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN With applications (second edition) by Grady Booch
the book goes through the process of designing several example systems step by step (i think it is enough to read the design process for these example systems); One minor problem is that the notation used in this book is a bit dated : modern practice is to use the UML notation for diagrams, however the book still uses the older Booch notation. The strong point of the book is that it is always explaining each concept by working through concrete examples.
There are some preliminary steps:
Understand OOD (in general)
Understand the problem/application domain (the functional specification)
Have a high-level/architectural design: know what O/S, libraries, frameworks etc. you can use
I then use a mixture of top-down and bottom-up development:
Top-down: decide what components and what APIs (object interfaces) I would like to have in order to implement the application (and then, develope those API)
Bottom-up: decide how to add new functionality to existing APIs (object interfaces), by adding new methods and new types of object (and sometimes splitting a large object into several smaller objects).
The first step of OOD are the OOD principles. Check out The Principles of OOD.
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently read an interesting comment on an OOP related question in which one user objected to creating a "Manager" class:
Please remove the word manager
from your vocabulary when talking
about class names. The name of the
class should be descriptive of its'
purpose. Manager is just another word
for dumping ground. Any
functionality will fit there. The word
has been the cause of many extremely
bad designs
This comment embodies my struggle to become a good object-oriented developer. I have been doing procedural code for a long time at an organization with only procedural coders. It seems like the main strategy behind the relatively little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)? Most OO articles/books, etc. use examples of problems that are inherently easy to transform into object groups (e.g., Vehicle -> Car) and thus do not provide much guidance for breaking down more complex systems.
First of all, I'd stop acting like procedural code is wrong. It's the right tool for some jobs. OO is also the right tool for some jobs. So is functional. Each paradigm is just a different point of view of computation, and exists because it's convenient for certain problems, not because it's the only right way to program. In principle, all three paradigms are mathematically equivalent, so use whichever one best maps to the problem domain. IMHO, if using a multiparadigm language it's even ok to blend paradigms within a module if different subproblems are best modeled by different worldviews.
Secondly, I'd read up on design patterns. It's hard to understand OO without some examples of the real-world problems it's good for solving. Head First Design Patterns is a good read, as it answers a lot of the "why" of OO.
Becoming good at OO takes years of practice and study of good OO code, ideally with a mentor. Remember that OO is just one means to an end. That being said, here are some general guidelines that work for me:
Favor composition over inheritance. Read and re-read the first chapter of the GoF book.
Obey the Law of Demeter ("tell, don't ask")
Try to use inheritance only to achieve polymorphism. When you extend one class from another, do so with the idea that you'll be invoking the behavior of that class through a reference to the base class. ALL the public methods of the base class should make sense for the subclass.
Don't get hung up on modeling. Build a working prototype to inform your design.
Embrace refactoring. Read the first few chapters of Fowler's book.
The single responsibility principle helps me break objects into manageable classes that make sense.
Each object should do one thing, and do it well without exposing how it works internally to other objects that need to use it.
A 'manager' class will often:
Interogate something's state
Make a decision based on that state
As an antidote or contrast to that, Object-Oriented design would encourage you to design class APIs where you "tell don't ask" the class itself to do things itself (and to encapsulate its own state): for more about "tell don't ask" see e.g. here and here (and maybe someone else has a better explanation of "tell don't ask" but these are first two articles that Google found for me).
It seems like the main strategy the little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
That may well be true even at the best of times. Coplien talked about this towards the end of his Advanced C++: Programming Styles and Idioms book: he said that in a system, you tend to have:
Self-contained objects
And, "transactions", which act on other objects
Take, for example, an airplane (and I'm sorry for giving you another vehicular example; I'm paraphrasing him):
The 'objects' might include the ailerons, the rudder, and the thrust
The 'manager' or autpilot would implement various commands or transactions
For example, the "turn right" transaction includes:
flaps.right.up()
flaps.left.down()
rudder.right()
thrust.increase()
So I think it's true that you have transactions, which cut across or use the various relatively-passive 'objects'; in an application, for example, the "whatever" user-command will end up being implemented by (and therefore, invoking) various objects from every layer (e.g. the UI, the middle layer, and the DB layer).
So I think it's true that to a certain extent you will have 'bits left over'; it's a matter of degree though: perhaps you ought to want as much of the code as possible to be self-contained, and encapsulating, and everything ... and the bits left over, which use (or depend on) everything else, should be given/using an API which hides as much as possible and which does as much as possible, and which therefore takes as much responsibility (implementation details) as possible away from the so-called manager.
Unfortunately I've only read of this concept in that one book (Advanced C++) and can't link you to something online for a clearer explanation than this paraphrase of mine.
Reading and then practicing OO principles is what works for me. Head First Object-Oriented Analysis & Design works you through examples to make a solution that is OO and then ways to make the solution better.
You can learn good object-oriented design principles by studying design patterns. Code Complete 2 is a good book to read on the topic. Naturally, the best way to ingrain good programming principles into your mind is to practice them constantly by applying them to your own coding projects.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)?
Make a class for what the manager is managing (for example, if you have a ConnectionManager class, make a class for a Connection). Move everything into that class.
The reason "manager" is a poor name in OOP is that one of the core ideas in OOP is that objects should manage themselves.
Don't be afraid to make small classes. Coming from a procedural background, you may think it isn't worth the effort to make a class unless it's a thousand lines of code and is some core concept in your domain. Think smaller. A ten line class is totally valid. Make little classes where you see they make sense (a Date, a MailingAddress) and then work your way up by composing classes out of those.
As you start to partition little pieces of your codebase into classes, the remaining procedural code soup will shrink. In that shrinking pool, you'll start to see other things that can be classes. Continue until the pool is empty.
How many OOP programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, the light bulb changes itself.
;)
You can play around with an OO language that has very bad procedural support like Smalltalk. The message sending paradigm will force you into OO thinking.
i think you should start it with a good plan.
planning using CLASS Diagrams would be a good start.
you should identify the ENTITIES needed in the applicaiton,
then define each entitie's ATTRIBUTES, and METHODS.
if there are repeated ones, you could now re-define your entities
in a way that inheritance could be done, to avoid redundancy.
:D.
I have a three step process, this is one that I have gone through successfully myself. Later I met an ex-teacher turned programmer (now very experienced) who explained to me exactly why this method worked so well, there's some psychology involved but it's essentially all about maintaining control and confidence as you learn. Here it is:
Learn what test driven development (TDD) is. You can comfortably do this with procedural code so you don't need to start working with objects yet if you don't want to. The second step depends on this.
Pick up a copy of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. It's essentially a catalogue of little changes that you can make to existing code. You can't refactor properly without tests though. What this allows you to do is to mess with the code without worrying that everything will break. Tests and refactoring take away the paranoia and sense that you don't know what will happen, which is incredibly liberating. You left to basically play around. As you get more confident with that start exploring mocks for testing the interactions between objects.
Now comes the big that most people, mistakenly start with, it's good stuff but it should really come third. At this point you can should reading about design patterns, code smells (that's a good one to Google) and object oriented design principles. Also learn about user stories or use cases as these give you good initial candidate classes when writing new applications, which is a good solution to the "where do I start?" problem when writing apps.
And that's it! Proven goodness! Let me know how it goes.
My eureka moment for understanding object-oriented design was when I read Eric Evans' book "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software". Or the "Domain Driven Design Quickly" mini-book (which is available online as a free PDF) if you are cheap or impatient. :)
Any time you have a "Manager" class or any static singleton instances, you are probably building a procedural design.
As a second interview I get people to sit down and write code...I try to make the problem really technology independent.
My programming problems that I have don't really exercise peoples OO abilities. I tend to try and keep the coding problem solvable within 2 hours ish. So, I've struggled to find a problem small enough and involved enough that it exposes peoples OO design skills.
Any suggestions?
This is a problem that I use with some trainings, looks simple but is tricky OOP-wise:
Create model classes that will properly represent the following constructs:
Define a Shape object, where the object is any two dimensional figure, and has the following characteristics: a name, a perimeter, and a surface area.
Define a Circle, retaining and accurately outputting the values of the aforementioned characteristics of a Shape.
Define a Triangle. This time, the name of the triangle should take into account if it is equilateral (all 3 sides are the same length), isoceles (only 2 sides are the same length), or scalene (no 2 sides are the same).
You can go on and on with quadrelaterals (which include squares, rectangles, rhombi, etc) and other polygons.
The way that they would solve the above problems would reveal the people who understand OOP apart from those who don't.
ideally, you want to present a problem that appears difficult, but has a simple, elegant, obvious solution if you think in OO terms
perhaps:
we need to control access to a customer web site
each customer may have one or more people to access the site
different people from different customers may be able to view different parts of the site
the same person may work for more than one customer
customers want to manage permissions based on the person, department, team, or project
design a solution for this using object-oriented techniques
one OO solution is to have a Person, a Customer, an Account, and AccountPermissions, where the Account specifies a Person and a Customer and an optional Parent Account. the use of a recursive Account object collapses the otherwise cumbersome person/team/department/project structure a direct ERD solution might yield
I have used the FizzBuzz Programming Test. And shockingly can corroborate the claims made by the article. As a second follow up I have asked candidates to compute the angle(s) between the hands on an analog clock. We set up a laptop with VS 2008 installed and the stub in place. all they have to do is fill in the implementation.
I am always stunned at how poorly candidates do on these two questions. I really am.
Designing Social Security Application is something which I ask a lot of people during interviews.
The nice thing about this is everyone is aware of how it works and what things to keep track of.
They also have to justify their design and this really helps me get inside their head :)
(As there is lots of flexibility here)
Kind regards,
Whether or not people do some coding in the interview, I make it a point to ask this:
Tell me about a problem you solved recently using object oriented programming. You'd be surprised how often people cannot answer that simple question. A lot of times I get a blank stare, or they say something like "what do you mean? I program in .NET, which is all object oriented."
These aren't specifically OO Questions, but check out the other questions tagged interview-questions
Edit: What about implementing some design patterns? I don't have the best knowledge in the area but it seems as if you would be getting two questions for the price of one. You can test for both OO and Design pattens in the one question.
How about some sort of simple GUI. It's got inheritance, overriding, possibly events. If you mean for them to actually implement as part of the test then you could hand them a blank windows-form with an OnPaint() and tell them to get to it.
You could do worse than ask them to design a MapReduce library with a single-process implementation. Will the interface still work for a distributed implementation? What's the exception-handling policy? Should there be special support for chaining MapReduce jobs in a pipeline? What's the interface to the inputs and outputs? How are inputs chunked up? Can different inputs in one job go to different mappers? What defaults are reasonable?
A good solution in Python takes about a page of code.
I've got a super simple set. The idea is mainly to use them to filter out people who really don't know their stuff rather than filtering in the rock stars.
These are all 5 minute white-board type questions, so they are really not that hard. But the act of writing up code, and talking through it reveals a lot about a candidate - and is brilliant for exposing those that can otherwise BS through the talk.
Write a method that takes a radius of a circle as an argument, and returns the area of the circle (You would be amazed how many people struggle on this one!)
Write a program that accepts a series of numbers as arguments from the command line. Add them up, and print the sum
Write a class that acts as a keyed counter (basically a map that keeps track of how many times each key is "counted")