Related
Can Someone distinguish Throw-away prototyping and Iterative development.
Both methods of prototyping are used when there's some aspect of the system that you don't entirely understand. However, the key difference is the lifecycle methodology that you use. With evolutionary prototyping, you typically understand some aspects of the system and aren't sure about others. In throwaway prototyping, you have a general lack of understanding that you need to complete before you can build a production-ready system.
Note that there are lots of kinds of throwaway prototyping, and neither are limited to the entire system. For example, using paper or whiteboard sketches of a user interface can be considered throwaway prototyping. Yes, you might go through several iterations and throw away a previous design, but you also won't use the final prototype in the system (it's not physically possible, for one).
If you're interested in general software engineering topics and the breadth of SE, I'd highly suggest picking up the Sommerville book that I quote. It's really good for covering the breadth of topics. If you're more interested in process models and methodologies and how you can apply them to various projects, I'd recommend the McConnell book - it has an entire chapter devoted to evolutionary prototyping and another chapter devoted to throwaway prototyping.
I also took a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on software prototyping. Some parts of it are a little weird (at least on my quick read), but there doesn't appear to be anything that I downright disagree with. Some of it is a little focused on one particular aspect, but it's not factually wrong that I see. I prefer the definitions below, but it might be an interesting read on various types of prototyping.
Aspect-oriented programming is a subject matter that has been very difficult for me to find any good information on. My old Software Engineering textbook only mentions it briefly (and vaguely), and the wikipedia and various other tutorials/articles I've been able to find on it give ultra-academic, highly-abstracted definitions of just what it is, how to use it, and when to use it. Definitions I just don't seem to understand.
My (very poor) understanding of AOP is that there are many aspects of producing a high-quality software system that don't fit neatly into a nice little cohesive package. Some classes, such as Loggers, Validators, DatabaseQueries, etc., will be used all over your codebase and thus will be highly-coupled. My (again, very poor) understanding of AOP is that it is concerned with the best practices of how to handle these types of "universally-coupled" packages.
Question : Is this true, or am I totally off? If I'm completely wrong, can someone please give a concise, laymen explanation for what AOP is, an example of a so-called aspect, and perhaps even provide a simple code example?
Separation of Concerns is a fundamental principle in software development, there is a classic paper by David Parnas On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules that may introduce you to the subject and also read Uncle Bob's SOLID Principles.
But then there are Cross Cutting concerns that might be included in many use cases like authentication, authorization, validation, logging, transaction handling, exception handling, caching, etc that spawn all the layers in software. And if you want to tackle the problem without duplication and employing the DRY principle, you must handle it in a sophisticated way.
You must use declarative programming, that simply in .net could be annotating a method or a property by an attribute and what happened later is changing the behavior of code in runtime depending of those annotations.
You can find a nice chapter on this topic in Sommerville's Software engineering book
Useful links
C2 wiki CrossCuttingConcern, MSDN, How to Address Crosscutting Concerns in Aspect Oriented Software Development
AOP is a technique where we extract and remove the cross cutting concerns (logging, Exception handling, ....) from our code into it’s own aspect. leaving our original code focusing only on the business logic. not only this makes our code more readable, maintainable but also the code is DRY.
This can be better explained by an example:
Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) in the .net world using Castle Windsor
or
Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) in the .net world using Unity
AOP is about crosscutting concerns i.e. things that you need to do throughout the whole application. For instance logging. Suppose you want to trace when you enter and exit a method. This is very easy with aspects. You basically specify a "handler" for an event, such as entering a method. If necessary you can also specify with "wildcards" which methods you are interested in and then it is just a matter of writing the handler code, that could for instance log some info.
Aspect Oriented Programming is basically for separating the cross-cutting concerns (Non-functional) and develop it as aspects, like, security, logging, monitor etc., kept it aside whenever you need in your application, you can use it as plug & play. Only benefit we can achieve is clean code ,less code and programmers can focus on business logic(core concerns) , so that better modularity and quality system can be developed.
I'm thoroughly intrigued by Scheme, and have started with some toy programming examples, and am reading through Paul Graham's On Lisp.
One thing I haven't been able to find is a book or website intended to teach Scheme to "OO people", i.e. people like myself who've done 99 % of their coding in c++/Java/Python.
I see that closures are sort of object-y, in the sense that they have local state, and offer one or more functions that have access to that state. But I don't want to learn Scheme only to port my existing habits on to it. This is why I'm learning Scheme rather than Common Lisp at the moment; I fear that CLOS might just serve as a crutch to my existing OO habits.
What would be ideal is a book or website that offers case studies of problems solved in both an OO language, and also in Scheme in a Schemey way. I suppose I would most appreciate scientific computing and/or computer graphics problems, but anything would do.
Any pedagogical leads would be much appreciated.
I doubt CLOS would serve as a crutch for old habits, I found it to be pretty different from the OO style in C++/Java/Python, and very interesting. I don't understand all the details, but I would recommend Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp. If you are reading On Lisp without much trouble, you should be able to dive into the chapters introducing CLOS in PCL. Also, I'd recommend his Google Tech Talk comparing Java and Common Lisp.
Here's a few more recommendations to make this a more full-fledged answer:
The classic text Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs covers quite a few examples in chapter 3 of building modular systems using closures (and addresses issues with introducing state and mutability). Chapter 2 includes some generic and data/type-directed programming which could be helpful for motivating study of CLOS. This book really needs no introduction though, it's a towering work, and I've only been reading it slowly since the spring. Highly recommended if you are interested in Scheme.
While SICP is a great book, it's not without its flaws: A really interesting look at these is the essay "The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum" which elaborates on a few criticism of SICP, and is written by the authors of How to Design Programs (I haven't read HTDP but I hear it's very good). While this essay won't teach you specifically what you are looking for - comparing functional and OO programming - it is really interesting anyway. Their freshman undergraduate course starts with a first semester introduction to functional programming using Scheme (I think, PLT/Racket) and is followed by a semester of OO programming with C++ or Java... at least that's the course they describe in the essay.
These slides from Peter Norvig address some of the design patterns common in OO programming and show why they are missing or unnecessary in dynamic, functional languages like Scheme and Lisp: http://norvig.com/design-patterns/
I cautiously recommend the book by the same authors as the Little Schemer books: A Little Java, A Few Patterns. I can't say for sure if this is a really a good book or not, it was incredibly strange and there are some really bad typesetting decisions (italic, serif, variable-width, superscript doesn't belong in a text on programming), but it might be interesting to take a look at. You can probably find it cheap, anyway. Don't take this recommendation that seriously. I think it would be better to stick to the Scheme texts.
p.s. I have to disagree with one comment stating that functional programming is not as complicated at OO programming, I think that's grossly misstating it. Functional programming in all its breadth is truly mind-boggling. When you go beyond map/filter/reduce and first-class functions, and take a look at other things in the functional realm like lazy evaluation, avoiding side effects and mutation, and the strong, static-typed languages, it gets pretty interesting, and is certainly just as complicated as traditional OO programming. I've only just scratched the surface myself but have discovered a great deal of new ideas. Programming is complicated business, whether OO or functional.
Congrat you, my friend ! Love cs, love functional programming.
If you are python developer it takes 3-4 days to think in scheme
Here is the best simple tutorial I have ever met http://www.shido.info/lisp/idx_scm_e.html
I found this course http://cs.gettysburg.edu/~tneller/cs341/scheme-intro/index.html and it may be useful for you
One beginner's resource that is very helpful and geared very much toward the casual reader is "The Adventures of a Pythonista in Schemeland". It's written (obviously) from the point of view of a Python programmer taking first steps with Scheme. One especially nice thing about it is that it includes an overview of the current implementations and compatibility issues between each scheme implementation, which, unfortunately, can cause some headaches when you're just starting out.
With regards to object systems, these two documents (linked from here) give nice examples of very simple toy implementations using closures that I found helpful in understanding their use in capturing state.
If you are starting off with Scheme, have a look at How to Design Programs. This book presents the "Schemey" approach to problem solving. I don't think there is a book that compares OO and functional solutions to the same programming problems. But there is a nice presentation that shows how dynamic languages like Scheme could provide simple solutions to problems that demand complex design patterns in statically typed OOP languages.
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've been studying OOP for quite a while now and I have a good grasp of the theory. I read the Head First book on OOP and, while it reinforced a lot of the theory, I found the case studies to be somewhat trivial.
I find that I'm applying OOP principles to my code each day, but I'm not sure if I'm applying them correctly. I need to get to the point where I am able to look at my code and know whether I'm using inheritance appropriately, whether my object is cohesive enough, etc.
Does anyone have any good recommendations (books, online guides, blogs, walk-throughs, etc.) for taking the next step in developing solid OOP skills?
I am working primarily in .NET (visual basic), but I welcome suggestions that incorporate various platforms.
Read Refactoring by Martin Fowler, and apply it to your own work.
It will take you through a litany of malodorous characteristics of software code that describe how to detect improperly constructed classes, and even more importantly, how to fix them.
Consider looking into Design Patterns. Although it seems like they aren't commonly used in enterprise applications (I've seen them more commonly used in API's and Frameworks than embedded into enterprise code), they could be applied to make software simpler or more robust in a lot of situations if only developers knew how to apply them.
The key is to understand the design patterns first, then with experience you'll learn how to apply them.
There is a Head First book on design patterns that teaches the concept pretty simply, although if you want a book that really covers design patterns in detail, check out the Gang of Four design patterns book, which is basically what made design patterns mainstream and is referred to almost every time the topic is brought up.
Design patterns can be applied in pretty much any object-oriented language to some degree or another, although some patterns can be overkill or over engineering in some cases.
EDIT:
I also want to add, you should check out the book Code Complete 2. It's a very influential book in the world of software development. It covers a lot of different concepts and theories. I learn something new every time I read it. It's such a good book that if I read it every 6 months to a year, I look at it from a different perspective that makes me a better programmer just by re-reading it. No matter how much you might think you know, this book will make you realize just how little you really know. It's really a great book. I can't stress how much you should own this book.
If you already have the basics, I believe only experience will get you further. You say you are not sure if you are applying the principles correctly, but there is no one correct way. Code you write today, you'll look at in 6 months time, and wonder why you wrote it that way, and probably know of a better, cleaner way of doing it. I also guarantee that after 10 years, you'll still be learning new techniques and tricks. Don't worry too much about it, it will come, just read as much as you can, and try and apply what you read in small chunks.
I am currently half-way through the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Applying-UML-Patterns-Introduction-Object-Oriented/dp/0131489062
I cannot recommend this book strongly enough in terms of learning a real-life, professional-grade, practical approach to drafting and applying a well-formed and iterative design strategy before diving into code.
I, too, read the "Head First" book and felt that I was much better off for having read it.
After having a few years of working-world experience, I now view the Craig Larman book that I am recommending to be a perfect "next step" for me.
About the Presence of "UML" in this Book Title:
Whether you have positive feelings or negative feelings about UML notation, please do not let that influence your decision to buy the book (ISBN 0131489062) in either direction.
The prominence of "UML" in the title is misleading. While the author does use and explain UML notation, these explanations are extremely well-woven into relevant design discussions, and at no time does this book read like a boring UML spec.
In fact, here is a quote taken directly from the book:
What's important is knowing how to think and design in objects, which is a very different and much more valuable skill than knowing UML notation. While drawing a diagram, we need to answer key questions: What are the responsibilities of the object? Who does it collaborate with? What design patterns should be applied? Far more important than knowing the difference between UML 1.4 and 2.0 !
This book at times seems like it is "speaking to" a lead architect or a project manager. What I mean to say by that is that it assumes that the reader has significant control over the planning and direction of a software project.
Nonetheless, even if you are only responsible for some very small piece of your company's projects and products, I would still recommend this book and encourage you to apply some "scaled down" modifications of the book's advice to your piece of the project.
My OOP epiphany came from Grady Booch's book, way long time ago. Suddenly I realized why objects were good.
While polymorphism is cool, encapsulation is 75% of why objects are cool. It is sort of like an interface: you see the buttons but not the wiring. Before objects, only the most disciplined coders kept their grubby fingers off the internal bits of other people's procedures (it was called "structured programming").
Object make it easy to Do the Right Thing. Inheritance and polymorphism are little bonuses.
One way to learn about objects is to read other peoples' code. I learned a lot by reading the source code for the Delphi VCL framework. Even just looking at the documentation for Java will help you see what a single object class should do and how it is designed to be used by other objects.
Start a project of your own and pay attention when you want to sub-class your own classes and find that you have to go back and break up some protected methods so you can override just one piece of a process instead of replacing all of it. See how ancestors talk to descendants by calling abstract functions. In other words, go make a lot of mistakes and learn from them.
Enjoy!
Frankly, re-reading old David Parnas papers on information hiding helps me get in the right state of mind. The case studies may not be directly applicable but you should be able to get some useful generalizations out of them.
My epiphany happened when I tried to implement a very OO problem (dynamically and recursively building SQL statements) in VB6. The best way to understand polymorphism or inheritance is to need it and not be able to use it.
One thing that will definitely help you is working on a well-known, respected open source project. Either dig through the source code and see how things are done or try to make some additions / modifications. You'll find that there isn't one style or one right answer for most problems, but by looking at several projects, you'll be able to get a wide view of how things can be done. From there, you'll begin to develop your own style and will hopefully make some contributions to open source in the process.
I think you have to attempt and fail at implementing OO solutions. That's how I did it anyway. What I mean by fail is that you end up writing smelly code while successfully delivering a working solution. After it's written you'll get a feel for where things didn't quite feel right. You may have some epiphanies, and/or you may go and hunt for a slicker solution from other programmers. Undoubtedly you'll implement some variation of standard design patterns by accident. In hindsight, a light will click on (oh! so that's what a visitor is for), and then understanding will accelerate.
As others have said, I think tooling through some good OO open source code is a good idea. So is working with more experienced programmers who would be willing to critique your work. However understanding comes through doing.
You might want to try to read (and write) some Smalltalk for a while. Squeak is a free implementation that can show you the power of a fully object-oriented environment (unlike java or .net). All library code source is included. The language itself is incredibly simple. You'll find that java and c# are slowly adding the features well-known to Smalltalk since 1980.
Tortoise HG is extrodanarily well designed piece of OO open source software (written in Python).
If you already understand the basics, building something from scratch in a fully object oriented language will be a good step in fully understanding OOP software architecture. If you don't know Python, Python Essential Reference will take you through the language in full in a few days to a week.
After you understand the language take a look through the software above and you'll have all sorts of epiphanies.
To understand basically anything thoroughly, you need to have a decent knowledge of at least one abstraction level above and one level below it. In the case of OO, others have mentioned design patterns as the layer above OO. This helps a lot to illustrate why OO is useful.
As far as the layer below OO, try to play around with higher-order functions/late binding for a while and get a feel for how these relatively simple constructs are used. Also, try to understand how OO is implemented under the hood (vtables, etc.) and how it can be done in pure C. Once you grok the value of using higher order functions and late binding, you'll quickly realize that OO is just a convenient syntax for passing around a set of related functions and the data they operate on.