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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I always hear that we need to encapsulate whenever we write object-oriented code. If I'm the only developer on a project, do I still need to use encapsulation?
One way to put an answer: Encapsulation, conceptually, exists for writing better, safer, less error-prone code. It doesn't exist, primarily, to facilitate teams working together on code (that might be a side effect, but that's not the purpose).
So the goods that encapsulation seeks to foster scale from one coder to many coders, and they are goods that do not really have to do with the number of coders, although those goods may find stronger expression the larger the project and teams are.
Encapsulation is there for a reason.
Someone has to maintain and manage your code after you are done, right? What if the project gets bigger and you get team members?
So, the answer is "yes", it is always best to use encapsulation whenever possible.
The fact you are asking this question makes me wonder you actually did not get the actual value of encapsulation as a means to reduce and thus deal with complexity.
My theoretical computer science professor used to tell me that in the end, if you think at the whole binary representation of a program, any program is just a number. Very big indeed but, only a number. And that is true, any other construct we use but 0 and 1 (i.e. C++, Java, Python, functional programming, object oriented programming, aspect oriented programming, etc..) is just because of the fact we need more abstract means to get the one number we need.
Related
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm almost new to programming and I came to this question that:
why should object carry code along with data? isn't packing data enough?
For example:
Instead of having 5 employee objects that each has a getDataOfBirth() method (consuming more memory), have a single method in global space and have 5 object with only attributes(smaller objects).
Am I getting something wrong? Is my question even considered general and possible to be occurred in every newbie's mind?
The linguistic aspect of it:
This is an idea that OOP skeptics have been talking about for a long time, but it's more of a matter of preference I would say. If you are new to programming and already are thinking about these things, then maybe functional programming would make a lot of sense to you.
The memory aspect of it:
The functions are typically not stored inside the objects, so OO objects that have a lot of functions do typically not carry those functions around. This is however an implementation detail but most OOP languages should be thought of like that.
Especially in the case of natively compiled languages like C++, the code and the data will be separated into different memory areas altogether and will not really mix. That is also a bit of an implementation detail but all mainstream operating systems, as far as I know, will allocate memory with code separated from data. The functions of a class will be allocated in one area and the data of the objects in another, and normally all objects of the same class will use the same functions.
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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Why do we use OOPs concepts?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of OOP?
Where do we use OOP?
How do we tell if a program can be written in OOP paradigm? How is it organized?
Note : I'm not related to technical field... So please consider this in your answers.
In short: to reduce the cognitive load required to write, maintain and understand the software.
Software systems are inherently complex, so developers need some tools to break things down to the modules and individual components that could be analyzed and understood without enormous efforts — and OOP is just that kind of tool.
Thats quite a big question. And I try to give you a feeling why we do develop principals like oop ,soa,....
Most of the principal target to make software less complex. Imagine a file with 1.000.000 functions. it would become difficult to find the you want to change. Especially if there are not veryx wqell name like "Update" so you could have a thousand "update" methods.
Often things are less complex if you don't see the complete information pool so you can focus and things you may need. Thats also why there ideas like the information hiding principle .
Another thing is that when you have standards you have to think about. For example in Real life you know that you can sit on a chair (thats a standard) you don't ahve to think about it. Thats why standards make like easier. Some aspects of OOP establish standards (e.g. use of classes) therefore there is little less complexity.
Having class which are grouping the functions may be the first step towards oop. Now when you search a function you would most propably know what you want to udpat "a custoemr" so you know this function may be in the customer class and you have to only look over these methods.
And most of the time thats what principals are made for. making software more read and understandable
OOP is much much more and not the only paradigm .But there is so much more and OOP has so much principals and interprations. It would be too much to explaind and discuss it here. I would also recommend you to have a look at the CleanCoders Movement which provide this in a more general way.
CleanCoders Webcasts
Does ORganization matter
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently developing a school project and we are instructed that we are required to implement Object-Oriented Programming concepts in our software. But I don't want to implement it just by simply inheriting this class to that class and overriding this method to implement its own functionality and so on. Though it is still acceptable but I want to do it differently. By differently, I mean by using design patterns. I'm trying to understand it one by one and I noticed that some of them are very useful(Builder, Memento and Adapter). But the problem is there are so many of them and if possible I want to put/implement it all(those 3 design pattern). Is it okay if I do that? Would it mess up the project as a whole?
As always: It depends.
Overusage of patterns on small and simple bits of code can obscure the code. But it can also make it more clear.
Don't use patterns wherever possible. Use them when it serves a purpose. Every pattern has its purpose and if you can't find that purpose in your code, you shouldn't rewrite it to match a pattern. Try to keep your code a) maintainable and b) easy to read. If a pattern fulfills these criteria more than your approach without patterns: go for it.
You can have code with dozens of patterns and code with none. In both cases it can be the ideal choice.
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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am documenting a small itcl project. Due to shortcomings in itcl support in doxygen, and the fact that Ruff! does not support itcl, I am left with NaturalDocs and RoboDoc as the leading candidates. However, I don't want to pick an unsupported system, and was wondering which is going to be there in the long term?
What will be there in the long term? Who knows! It depends on how much people use it, really, as with all open source code systems. It should be noted that both the tools you refer to are really slow developing at this point: they do what they do and need little significant change to keep on doing it.
As far as I can see, ROBODoc requires that you do pretty much all the annotation work yourself, whereas NaturalDocs will derive a bit more for you. Not very much though; in particular, you will have to write plenty of annotations on things whichever route you use. (I've no particular experience with either though; I tend to prefer to maintain documentation in a separate file with something like doctools but that's a very different approach. I've also done nasty custom things in the past; you really don't want to use them.)
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
What are the best practices for separating data in different classes? Not just objective c, but programming in general.
For example, if someone was making a game like angry birds, how one manage classes?
Would you have a separate class for just the projectiles (in angry birds case, the birds) and have different classes for the targets, music and images, etc?
There is no simple answer to this. You first need to really understand, deep in your soul, how object-oriented programming works and what it represents. Then you need to make your own decisions based on that understanding and your understanding of the problem at hand.
I've seen many "cookbook" applications of OO and MVC and the like that are terrible, even though the writers dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's and their college professors would have given them an A+ on the project.
But in general I'd probably have a common superclass (with several subclasses) for entities that represent visible, movable objects, but probably not use that for music, eg.
not even data but your functional approach must be modular. create as many smaller components in terms of classes and define their behavior as methods and set the interaction between them through the Game Manager/Logic control system that you design for your game...
Best of luck..!!