Related
I needed to get the root item of a TreeView. The obvious way to get it is to use the getRoot() on the TreeView. Which I use.
I like to experiment, and was wondering if I can get same root, buy climbing up the tree from a leaf item (a TreeItem), using recursively getParent() until the result is NULL.
It is working as well, and, in my custom TreeItem, I added a public method 'getRoot()' to play around with it. Thus finding out this method does already exist in parent TreeItem, but is not exposed.
My question : Why would it not be exposed ? Is is a bad practice regarding OOP / MVC architecture ?
The reason for the design is summed up by kleopatra's comment:
Why would it not be exposed I would pose it the other way round: why should it? It's convenience api at best, easy to implement by clients, not really needed - adding such to a framework/toolkit tends to exploding api/implementation to maintain.
JavaFX is filled with decisions like this on purpose. A lot of the reasoning is based on experience (good and bad) from AWT/Spring. Just some examples:
For specifying execution on the UI thread, there is a runLater API, but no invokeAndWait API like Swing, even though it would be easy for the framework to provide such an API and it has been requested.
Providing an invokeAndWait API means that naive (and experienced :-) developers could use it incorrectly to accidentally deadlock threads.
Lots of classes are final and not extensible.
Sometimes developers want to extend classes, but can't because they are final. This means that they can't over-ride a lot of the built-in tested functionality of the framework and accidentally break it that way. Instead they can usually use aggregation over inheritance to do what they need. The framework forces them to do so in order to protect itself and them.
Color objects are immutable.
Immutable objects in general make stuff easier to maintain.
Native look and feels aren't part of the framework.
You can still create them if you want, and there are 3rd party libraries that do that, but it doesn't need to be in the core framework.
The application programming interface is single threaded not multi-threaded.
Because the developers of the framework realized that multi-threaded UI frameworks are a failed dream.
The philosophy was to code to make the 80% use case easier and the the 20% use case (usually) possible, using additional user or 3rd party code, while making it difficult for the user code to accidentally (or intentionally) break the framework. You just stumbled upon one instance of an application of this philosophy.
There are a whole host of catch-phrases that you could use to describe the reason for this design approach. None of them are OOP or MVC specific. The underlying principles have been around far longer than software engineering, they are just approaches towards work and engineering in general. Here are some links if interested:
You ain't going to need it YAGNI
Minimal viable product MVP
Worse-is-better
Muntzing
Feature creep prevention
Keep it simple stupid KISS
Occam's razor
CakePHP Applications being made in our company tends to become unmaintainable as it becomes more complex. I figured that one specific reason is inheritance which makes the functions in child classes depends a lot on it's parent classes and vice-versa (implementing template method pattern). Why is CakePHP designed this way and not friendly in using Dependency Injection, Strategies, or Factory patterns?
There is not such a bad design as you claim in the framework. Sure, there are probably things that could be done better but I would like to see a more substantial critic including solid arguments and examples. I assume you're not using the framework as it was intended.
Let me quote the first paragraph from this page.
According to Eric Evans, Domain-driven design (DDD) is not a technology or a methodology. It’s a different way of thinking about how to organize your applications and structure your code. This way of thinking complements very well the popular MVC architecture. The domain model provides a structural view of the system. Most of the time, applications don’t change, what changes is the domain. MVC, however, doesn’t really tell you how your model should be structured. That’s why some frameworks don’t force you to use a specific model structure, instead, they let your model evolve as your knowledge and expertise grows.
You're not showing code (for a reason?) so I guess your problem comes from stuffing everything into the table objects in src/Model/Table/ or doing something similar.
But you're totally free to create a folder structure like
/src/Service
/src/Model/Domain
and then simply instantiate services as you need them in your controller actions. A service could be for example \App\Service\User\Registration and using objects from App\Model\Domain\User.
I agree that the framework in fact doesn't provide any recommendation or template structure for how this could look like. For exactly this topic there is a discussion going on here. Because of a lack of such a structure I've started working on a plugin that provides this. The plugin doesn't require but suggest the usage of DI containers for the people who want them.
Given the whole fancy topic around DI and DDD so far I would say there is not the one way to get things right but different paths as long as the code is easy to maintain. And honestly, as long as this goal is archived I really don't care about how you call it. :) I think many people tend do make this topic to academic instead of simply trying to be practical.
Not everybody is even needing that structure. It depends on if you're building a RAD CRUD application or a more complex app. Not every application needs a DDD approach. There are so many shades of gray when it comes to design the business layer, no matter how the framework would do it, somebody would always complain about it.
I personally almost never missed a DI container in CakePHP, not even in the biggest project having more than ~560 database tables which was a hospital management solution and it just worked well.
I would suggest you to ask a more specific question about your approach how you structured your code and showing your structure and code and then asking for advice on how to improve it instead of blaming the tool you're using in the first place without providing context.
Unfortunately CakePHP v3 can not compare to the Zend3/Laminas, Symfony or Laravel.It is 7-8 years behind the other frameworks.If you are using cake for years or it is your 1st and last framework it is normal to not realise that.But if you have to use it after Zend 3... cake seems like really bad ecosystem.
Bad documentation
Bad ORM
Poor Routing system
Bad Templating engine
Bad idea to mix Data Mapper and Active Record
DIC is totally missing
Components - not good but not terrible
...
And many more thinks that should not be underestimated like - lack of GOOD tutorials, pluigns/addons/packages
The above thinks make developers to follow bad practices that adds a lot of technical depth.
If you care just for - it works! But not how it works and why it is bad, cake will fit ok for you.
Cake can not scale as good as Symfony/Laminas if you are doing big project.(yea AWS/GC can help for scaling a lot of thinks but not for scaling source code)
Cake doesn't allow you rapid development like Laravel/Symfony for decent project.
I'm wondering who and WHY would start a new project today using Cake as it has zero benefits over the other frameworks.
Probably only devs who used only Cake for last decade and do not want to start learning new technologies or devs that thinks SOLID is just a fancy hype with zero benefits like design patterns, DRY and KISS
CakePHP framework supplies user interaction with databases using Active record, it means that exist a high coupling between business layer and database layer which has negative effects in unit testing and because of that the framework is not friendly with Dependency Injection. The same issue happens with Factory pattern, high coupling mentioned before makes more difficult use simulated objects in unit testing.
Hope it helps!
Alberto
We have been developing code using loose coupling and dependency injection.
A lot of "service" style classes have a constructor and one method that implements an interface. Each individual class is very easy to understand in isolation.
However, because of the looseness of the coupling, looking at a class tells you nothing about the classes around it or where it fits in the larger picture.
It's not easy to jump to collaborators using Eclipse because you have to go via the interfaces. If the interface is Runnable, that is no help in finding which class is actually plugged in. Really it's necessary to go back to the DI container definition and try to figure things out from there.
Here's a line of code from a dependency injected service class:-
// myExpiryCutoffDateService was injected,
Date cutoff = myExpiryCutoffDateService.get();
Coupling here is as loose as can be. The expiry date be implemented literally in any manner.
Here's what it might look like in a more coupled application.
ExpiryDateService = new ExpiryDateService();
Date cutoff = getCutoffDate( databaseConnection, paymentInstrument );
From the tightly coupled version, I can infer that the cutoff date is somehow determined from the payment instrument using a database connection.
I'm finding code of the first style harder to understand than code of the second style.
You might argue that when reading this class, I don't need to know how the cutoff date is figured out. That's true, but if I'm narrowing in on a bug or working out where an enhancement needs to slot in, that is useful information to know.
Is anyone else experiencing this problem? What solutions have you? Is this just something to adjust to? Are there any tools to allow visualisation of the way classes are wired together? Should I make the classes bigger or more coupled?
(Have deliberately left this question container-agnostic as I'm interested in answers for any).
While I don't know how to answer this question in a single paragraph, I attempted to answer it in a blog post instead: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2012/02/02/LooseCouplingAndTheBigPicture.aspx
To summarize, I find that the most important points are:
Understanding a loosely coupled code base requires a different mindset. While it's harder to 'jump to collaborators' it should also be more or less irrelevant.
Loose coupling is all about understanding a part without understanding the whole. You should rarely need to understand it all at the same time.
When zeroing in on a bug, you should rely on stack traces rather than the static structure of the code in order to learn about collaborators.
It's the responsibility of the developers writing the code to make sure that it's easy to understand - it's not the responsibility of the developer reading the code.
Some tools are aware of DI frameworks and know how to resolve dependencies, allowing you to navigate your code in a natural way. But when that isn't available, you just have to use whatever features your IDE provides as best you can.
I use Visual Studio and a custom-made framework, so the problem you describe is my life. In Visual Studio, SHIFT+F12 is my friend. It shows all references to the symbol under the cursor. After a while you get used to the necessarily non-linear navigation through your code, and it becomes second-nature to think in terms of "which class implements this interface" and "where is the injection/configuration site so I can see which class is being used to satisfy this interface dependency".
There are also extensions available for VS which provide UI enhancements to help with this, such as Productivity Power Tools. For instance, you can hover over an interface, a info box will pop up, and you can click "Implemented By" to see all the classes in your solution implementing that interface. You can double-click to jump to the definition of any of those classes. (I still usually just use SHIFT+F12 anyway).
I just had an internal discussion about this, and ended up writing this piece, which I think is too good not to share. I'm copying it here (almost) unedited, but even though it's part of a bigger internal discussion, I think most of it can stand alone.
The discussion is about introduction of a custom interface called IPurchaseReceiptService, and whether or not it should be replaced with use of IObserver<T>.
Well, I can't say that I have strong data points about any of this - it's just some theories that I'm pursuing... However, my theory about cognitive overhead at the moment goes something like this: consider your special IPurchaseReceiptService:
public interface IPurchaseReceiptService
{
void SendReceipt(string transactionId, string userGuid);
}
If we keep it as the Header Interface it currently is, it only has that single SendReceipt method. That's cool.
What's not so cool is that you had to come up with a name for the interface, and another name for the method. There's a bit of overlap between the two: the word Receipt appears twice. IME, sometimes that overlap can be even more pronounced.
Furthermore, the name of the interface is IPurchaseReceiptService, which isn't particularly helpful either. The Service suffix is essentially the new Manager, and is, IMO, a design smell.
Additionally, not only did you have to name the interface and the method, but you also have to name the variable when you use it:
public EvoNotifyController(
ICreditCardService creditCardService,
IPurchaseReceiptService purchaseReceiptService,
EvoCipher cipher
)
At this point, you've essentially said the same thing thrice. This is, according to my theory, cognitive overhead, and a smell that the design could and should be simpler.
Now, contrast this to use of a well-known interface like IObserver<T>:
public EvoNotifyController(
ICreditCardService creditCardService,
IObserver<TransactionInfo> purchaseReceiptService,
EvoCipher cipher
)
This enables you to get rid of the bureaucracy and reduce the design the the heart of the matter. You still have intention-revealing naming - you only shift the design from a Type Name Role Hint to an Argument Name Role Hint.
When it comes to the discussion about 'disconnectedness', I'm under no illusion that use of IObserver<T> will magically make this problem go away, but I have another theory about this.
My theory is that the reason many programmers find programming to interfaces so difficult is exactly because they are used to Visual Studio's Go to definition feature (incidentally, this is yet another example of how tooling rots the mind). These programmers are perpetually in a state of mind where they need to know what's 'on the other side of an interface'. Why is this? Could it be because the abstraction is poor?
This ties back to the RAP, because if you confirm programmers' belief that there's a single, particular implementation behind every interface, it's no wonder they think that interfaces are only in the way.
However, if you apply the RAP, I hope that slowly, programmers will learn that behind a particular interface, there may be any implementation of that interface, and their client code must be able to handle any implementation of that interface without changing the correctness of the system. If this theory holds, we've just introduced the Liskov Substitution Principle into a code base without scaring anyone with high-brow concepts they don't understand :)
However, because of the looseness of the coupling, looking at a class
tells you nothing about the classes around it or where it fits in the
larger picture.
This is not accurate.For each class you know exactly what kind of objects the class depends on, to be able to provide its functionality at runtime.
You know them since you know that what objects are expected to be injected.
What you don't know is the actual concrete class that will be injected at runtime which will implement the interface or base class that you know your class(es) depend on.
So if you want to see what is the actual class injected, you just have to look at the configuration file for that class to see the concrete classes that are injected.
You could also use facilities provided by your IDE.
Since you refer to Eclipse then Spring has a plugin for it, and has also a visual tab displaying the beans you configure. Did you check that? Isn't it what you are looking for?
Also check out the same discussion in Spring Forum
UPDATE:
Reading your question again, I don't think that this is a real question.
I mean this in the following manner.
Like all things loose coupling is not a panacea and has its own disadvantages per se.
Most tend to focus on the benefits but as any solution it has its disadvantages.
What you do in your question is describe one of its main disadvantages which is that it indeed is not easy to see the big picture since you have everything configurable and plugged in by anything.
There are other drawbacks as well that one could complaint e.g. that it is slower than tight coupled applications and still be true.
In any case, re-iterating, what you describe in your question is not a problem you stepped upon and can find a standard solution (or any for that manner).
It is one of the drawbacks of loose coupling and you have to decide if this cost is higher than what you actually gain by it, like in any design-decision trade off.
It is like asking:
Hey I am using this pattern named Singleton. It works great but I can't create new objects!How can I get arround this problem guys????
Well you can't; but if you need to, perhaps singleton is not for you....
One thing that helped me is placing multiple closely related classes in the same file. I know this goes against the general advice (of having 1 class per file) and I generally agree with this, but in my application architecture it works very well. Below I will try to explain in which case this is.
The architecture of my business layer is designed around the concept of business commands. Command classes (simple DTO with only data and no behavior) are defined and for each command there is a 'command handler' that contains the business logic to execute this command. Each command handler implements the generic ICommandHandler<TCommand> interface, where TCommand is the actual business command.
Consumers take a dependency on the ICommandHandler<TCommand> and create new command instances and use the injected handler to execute those commands. This looks like this:
public class Consumer
{
private ICommandHandler<CustomerMovedCommand> handler;
public Consumer(ICommandHandler<CustomerMovedCommand> h)
{
this.handler = h;
}
public void MoveCustomer(int customerId, Address address)
{
var command = new CustomerMovedCommand();
command.CustomerId = customerId;
command.NewAddress = address;
this.handler.Handle(command);
}
}
Now consumers only depend on a specific ICommandHandler<TCommand> and have no notion of the actual implementation (as it should be). However, although the Consumer should know nothing about the implementation, during development I (as a developer) am very much interested in the actual business logic that is executed, simply because development is done in vertical slices; meaning that I'm often working on both the UI and business logic of a simple feature. This means I'm often switching between business logic and UI logic.
So what I did was putting the command (in this example the CustomerMovedCommand and the implementation of ICommandHandler<CustomerMovedCommand>) in the same file, with the command first. Because the command itself is concrete (since its a DTO there is no reason to abstract it) jumping to the class is easy (F12 in Visual Studio). By placing the handler next to the command, jumping to the command means also jumping to the business logic.
Of course this only works when it is okay for the command and handler to be living in the same assembly. When your commands need to be deployed separately (for instance when reusing them in a client/server scenario), this will not work.
Of course this is just 45% of my business layer. Another big peace however (say 45%) are the queries and they are designed similarly, using a query class and a query handler. These two classes are also placed in the same file which -again- allows me to navigate quickly to the business logic.
Because the commands and queries are about 90% of my business layer, I can in most cases move very quickly from presentation layer to business layer and even navigate easily within the business layer.
I must say these are the only two cases that I place multiple classes in the same file, but makes navigation a lot easier.
If you want to learn more about how I designed this, I've written two articles about this:
Meanwhile... on the command side of my architecture
Meanwhile... on the query side of my architecture
In my opinion, loosely coupled code can help you much but I agree with you about the readability of it.
The real problem is that name of methods also should convey valuable information.
That is the Intention-Revealing Interface principle as stated by
Domain Driven Design ( http://domaindrivendesign.org/node/113 ).
You could rename get method:
// intention revealing name
Date cutoff = myExpiryCutoffDateService.calculateFromPayment();
I suggest you to read thoroughly about DDD principles and your code could turn much more readable and thus manageable.
I have found The Brain to be useful in development as a node mapping tool. If you write some scripts to parse your source into XML The Brain accepts, you could browse your system easily.
The secret sauce is to put guids in your code comments on each element you want to track, then the nodes in The Brain can be clicked to take you to that guid in your IDE.
Depending on how many developers are working on projects and whether you want to reuse some parts of it in different projects loose coupling can help you a lot. If your team is big and project needs to span several years, having loose coupling can help as work can be assigned to different groups of developers more easily. I use Spring/Java with lots of DI and Eclipse offers some graphs to display dependencies. Using F3 to open class under cursor helps a lot. As stated in previous posts, knowing shortcuts for your tool will help you.
One other thing to consider is creating custom classes or wrappers as they are more easily tracked than common classes that you already have (like Date).
If you use several modules or layer of application it can be a challenge to understand what a project flow is exactly, so you might need to create/use some custom tool to see how everything is related to each other. I have created this for myself, and it helped me to understand project structure more easily.
Documentation !
Yes, you named the major drawback of loose coupled code. And if you probably already realized that at the end, it will pay off, it's true that it will always be longer to find "where" to do your modifications, and you might have to open few files before finding "the right spot"...
But that's when something really important: the documentation. It's weird that no answer explicitly mentioned that, it's a MAJOR requirement in all big sized development.
API Documentation
An APIDoc with a good search feature. That each file and --almost-- each methods have a clear description.
"Big picture" documentation
I think it's good to have a wiki that explain the big picture. Bob have made a proxy system ? How doest it works ? Does it handle authentication ? What kind of component will use it ? Not a whole tutorial, but just a place when you can read 5 minutes, figure out what components are involved and how they are linked together.
I do agree with all the points of Mark Seemann answer, but when you get in a project for the first time(s), even if you understand well the principles behing decoupling, you'll either need a lot of guessing, or some sort of help to figure out where to implement a specific feature you want to develop.
... Again: APIDoc and a little developper Wiki.
I am astounded that nobody has written about the testability (in terms of unit testing of course) of the loose coupled code and the non-testability (in the same terms) of the tightly coupled design! It is no brainer which design you should choose. Today with all the Mock and Coverage frameworks it is obvious, well, at least for me.
Unless you do not do unit tests of your code or you think you do them but in fact you don't...
Testing in isolation can be barely achieved with tight coupling.
You think you have to navigate through all the dependencies from your IDE? Forget about it! It is the same situation as in case of compilation and runtime. Hardly any bug can be found during the compilation, you cannot be sure whether it works unless you test it, which means execute it. Want to know what is behind the interface? Put a breakpoint and run the goddamn application.
Amen.
...updated after the comment...
Not sure if it is going to serve you but in Eclipse there is something called hierarchy view. It shows you all the implementations of an interface within your project (not sure if the workspace as well). You can just navigate to the interface and press F4. Then it will show you all the concrete and abstract classes implementing the interface.
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...)
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.