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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I work at a web development shop so naturally we deal with user profiles. When dealing with one of our sites I noticed that there was no 'User' class, which struck me as odd since we certainly have users. Instead the site relies on interacting with DataRows (this is C#) returned through static methods with little to no instantiation. I asked my boss about creating a class for users and his response was that since the objects have to be rebuilt so much its often not worth it.
I am relatively new to web development and it does seem like a bit of a waste to have to instantiate objects each time the page is rebuilt but on the other hand I've always found object oriented programming to be useful. So I'm curious for some opinions, how much do you guys use OOP in web development?
The only time I don't use OOP is when:
I'm creating a simple project to test some logic. This usually leads to creating the right classes...
I'm using Classic ASP (been awhile, thank god).
I'm not programming.
edit
3+ years after posting the above; I'm appending a bit to my answer.
OOP is great and allows us a tremendous amount of flexibility for having multiple systems interacting with the same data / logic. However, there is certainly a situation in which you wouldn't want to bother loading up a lot of objects.. Namely, when you are simply pulling data for tabular display.
Querying a database and getting a simple record set back that is immediately emitted to the browser usually doesn't need OOP involved. As a matter of fact you might want to sidestep OOP completely as tabular data usually involves a roll up of other information (sums of child records) and you normally don't want to pull more data from the database than what you are actually using. ie. if you are only showing the name and email you probably don't want to grab the user name as that is just wasted cycles.
Now, putting information into a DB usually involves making sure that certain business logic is followed. For example that the username follows certain rules. In those situations leveraging an OOP style keeps things a bit more encapsulated and easily transferred between systems.
So, looking at the specific example: I wouldn't bother with more than handing a datatable to a repeater when pulling data; but I would have a user class for when I'm going to create a new one or operate on that user to make sure the business rules are properly followed.
One question: does the data need to be coupled with function/method calls? If not, OOP is not necessary.
Your best approach might be to find an empty whiteboard, create a high level model using Object Oriented Design, then with Functional Design, then with Procedural. You might surprise yourself (and others) with the results. The same language can be used in vastly different ways depending on the project. As mentioned by #wj. OOP is just a paradigm, don't be afraid to step outside of your comfort zone and design using a different paradigm.
Taking time to design using different paradigms will also help you when you approach your boss to discuss why you should or should not use the current paradigm. Most bosses will appreciate that you spent the time to research before approaching them with an idea -- this isn't to say they'll accept your idea, but being knowledgable going in will potentially get you a few extra minutes of his/her attention.
IMHO (don't take this personally), "Object Oriented Programming" has fallen with the likes of "Web 2.0" -- a buzzword of sorts, which is unfortunate; you now see developers forcing OOP where it would be better suited to use FP or PP.
The best professional advice I can give is to design (high level at first, then dive down) in multiple paradigms (do your best not to be biased -- keep an open mind) and decide which one best addresses the way your application works. In my 15 years experience, 75+% of the time I find OOP to be unnecessary, although my current project is strictly OOP.
A more important/relevant question would be, "Does Object Oriented Design have a place in my current web development?"
Although objects make it easier for some programmers to develop, I've read the perfect example of how to build an entire website without OOP. Not once ounce. Check out the last page in a 20 page series entitled Clean PHP:
http://okmaya.com/clean-php/clean-php-step-20/
Super easy to follow, clean way of building an entire website. No confusing OOP, no super nested folder, no crazy spaghetti code to follow for hours... Just simple, clean, and well laid out functions that do EVERYTHING you need, without the use of OOP. And this example has everything from login/registration credentials, an admin section (CMS), even database fixtures to get you started, a search function that uses mapquest API to do zip code / lat-long lookups... I mean it has EVERYTHING for a core project, or website.
Why bother with OOP? Clean, and properly structured procedural code is great!
On the topic of OOP. I remember another fad that everyone thought it was cool, and everyone did it, but then found out that smoking gave you a whole bunch of problems.
Stick to the simple, stick to what you know. Be an expert in PHP and you never have to depend on a framework again. Don't get me started with OOP MVC Frameworks. Interpreted languages for the web were never meant to be OOP. OOP just adds another layer of complexity. Stop being lazy. Use your PHP, and learn how to freakin program!
On the other hand, I can see how making games on a console can be difficult without OOP. But then again, it's apples an oranges. Console games keep their objects in memory until the game exits, or object is destroyed from within game. Think about it... Why do they have a loading bar in front of every level? Now, imagine a web page that has to show you a loading bar every time it loads because it has to create objects from a database. SLLOOOOOOWWWWW central! And once you navigate away from this page, you have to start all over again.
Web pages are applications within themselves. It's like rebuilding your drag racer each time you go to the starting line, only to take it apart at the finish line. WTFridge? Seriously? Hey, super geniuses who think OOP is sooo cool... Keep your damn OOP out of my websites!
Just saying, this is from my 10+ years experience with web development, you know when we used to code pages in HTML, one by one?
OOP is nothing more than a programming paradigm !! but his importance is that hi is THE actual paradigm in use implying that all modern knowledge and best practices in software engineering will be expressed following this style of programming ...
A good example in your case (web development) is the Core J2EE Patterns.
(source: sun.com)
Of course it does. You (and more so your boss) say "rebuilding" like it's a huge chore.
What you mean by "rebuilding" is running the program. Tell your boss that OOP in general is stupid because even in a desktop environment every time somebody runs a piece of software the objects need to be rebuilt so it's not even worth it.
Boss's comment is useless. The .net framework consists of objects and nothing else. A "response" is an object, even in "classic ASP" - why would people have implemented it if that were resource ineffective?
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
The question seems pretty simple, and so is the answer. I am a developer who recently started working. So far I had taken few bachelor and master level courses on OOP. And yet I am not comfirtable and confident with OOP concepts. Recently, I was searching for employment opportunities and I found that many employers were keen to know how much confident I am on OOP concepts.
I have a very strong theorotical knowledge on OOP concepts. Although this theorotical knowledge is helping me in clearing the interviews and getting a job but when it comes to implementation I am getting dumb. If you ask me what is reflection then you will get a perfect answer from me, but if someone asks me why and where do we use it, then I get fumbled.
Now I really want to know what I should do when I am not getting an opportunity to implement all or most of the OO concepts in my projects.
Also I really feel with all the latest development tools and programming environments, many of the programmers are getting pampered to use already built components, frameworks and libraries and this is might create a vacuum of good architects.
I want to become a successful architect and for that I think I must be very strong in this area.
Then I thought of learning NHibernate where you will be dealing with objects entirely.
Now what I need is few valuable tips that would help me in grasping all or most of the OOP concepts.
It sound like you're missing real programming experience. Nothing will substitute that.
Go working, exercise, read, learn from your more experienced colleagues. Eventually you'll get it.
As for very advanced tools, you are correct. They produce code monkeys in ever increasing amounts. If you see it right now you are on a good start. Just keep to the path. Good architects will always be needed and valued.
You want to start looking at design patterns. Knowing the when, how and why of using OOP is more valuable than knowing OOP itself.
Frameworks are great and I don't fault people for using them. But, there is still a lot of room for great architects in this space. Exploit the gap of programmers knowing how to use them, but not why or when. Frameworks quickly become a hammer looking for a nail for many developers. Open source is your friend here - dive into the source code and learn them from the inside out so you really understand what's being done and why.
In my experience, you learn the "conceptual" side of development from school and the "applications" side from real experience. There is no substitute for working on the job; no matter how much schooling I've had it never equates to what I've learned doing the real work. This is why it's also a good idea to get an internship in college if you're able.
As for the value of OOP itself, I find that it's most useful in large projects and in team projects. The whole point is to break down the solution into workable "conceptual" elements which makes intercommunication between team members easier as well as visualizing the solution. Visualization is the other big pro to OOP.
One thing to note about OOP IMHO is that entry level developers tend to overuse a lot of the OOP concepts. Not everything requires inheritance. Design patterns are extremely useful but also shouldn't be over applied. Look at your problem and first try to think of a solution on your own then compare it to known patterns and see if they provide a better answer. Simplicity can't be overrated.
Also, playing with tools like UML editors and Mind Mappers (such as XMind) are helpful in getting into the right frame of mind.
Check and see if there are any programming groups around you too; I find it's a good way to meet people that you can talk programming with and another advantage of OOP is its much easier to communicate programming ideas with.
Your next stop should be to look into design patterns (Applied OO). For an introductory text, check out Headfirst Design Patterns.
Interesting question. To some extent I've grown up with Object programming, I've evolved as the various frameworks have evolved, I'd never before considered how it would feel to come to a landscape where so many sophisticated frameworks already exist. Their very presence tends to inhibit that degree of fumbling and stumbling and generallly getting it wrong that leads to deeper understanding.
My perception though is that serious development is still a matter of good design, it's not all just fill-in-the-gaps, hey IOC framwork tell me what to do, programming.
You can enhance your theoretic knowlege by studying the "how" of the framworks you use. But I guess what you need is practical experience, can't comment upon what's open to you in your place of work, but if you can't get it there you may need to do some "hobbyist" or open source development.
One thing I would recommend is trying to get involved in design discussions, try to get your designs reviewed by experienced developers. With any luck they may even say: "hey why didn't you use reflection there ..."
It is the 'thinking' that is important, in OOP one needs to change thinking
while going about programming/developing in oop environment or using OOP
paradigm.
I have faced many a times this question myself: why use OOPL or
Object Oriented Programming Language when I can develop software in Procedural
Programming Language? Why use OOP methodology at all? What benefit does it have
what other non-oop doesn't?
I read from many sources (numerous books and articles on the subject to name!)
to trace the real reason, to hit the fundamental underlying idea or principle
for its being there as a paradigm of software engineering. I think what I found
is simple and that's why I suggest to bring a change in thinking.
If we look around we see things that surround us and the things we interact
with, directly or indirectly. We recognize them with names, we gave them.
Whatever the things are, either they exist in real plane or conceptual plane
and we 'know' them 'recognize' them and interact with them. And importantly we
'name' them. This naming is important because to interact with the 'things' and
for that knowledge of that interaction we need 'Names'.
What have you eaten today? Chocolate and coffee. So you have 'interacted' with
chocolate and coffee. Now Chocolate and coffee are edibles we have (humans)
have given names and with those names we recognize them. And also, we, in our
knowledge of our interaction with them - lets say keeping record of our
interaction with chocolate and coffee, know them with names as having
interacted with.
Interaction is a general term I am using here. Actually in our case, in the
example, you have performed an 'action' - eating. Through 'eating' action you
have interacted with chocolate and coffee. Now think this way, you, chocolate,
coffee are entities in the real world through an action came in interaction.
You may say a 'Process'.
What course Alice has enrolled for? Computer Science.
Computer Science does not have a real existence in the world in the sense a man
exists or a tree or a house, or coffee cup or other 'tangible things' exist. It
is a subject, 'conceptual thing'. The study of computer science has some
'topics' to be studied (or to have interaction with through our mental
faculty/processes)e.g discrete mathematics, design and analysis of algorithms,
Data Structure etc. Together they are named, as a subject of study, 'Computer
Science'. Now Alice 'study' (interaction) Computer Science.What is happening
here? OK, if We now think this way and say that Alice is a thing, an object.
Computer Science is a thing, an object.
Coffee is an object. Chocolate is an object. You, again, are an object. We find
that objects interacting with objects. Fantastic! One may exclaim! That's the
real world scenario! Actually it is a generalization reached through
Abstraction.
It is nothing but -at the surface level at least- naming with
meaning. Or you can say 'meaningful naming'. It is a process. It is so natural
and obvious to us that we simply overlook it.
In OOP we simply have to bring ourselves to this form of thinking process,
knowing and reminding ourselves that "Objects interact with Objects". Oh!
There are more than thinking only this. You have to remember that an object
may interact with itself! Think of you, what are you doing when you are
thinking? Yeah! And there is another very important thing I shall come to
in due time. Though I think it is obvious. But in due time. OK. What we
really do with computers? Actually we solve problems. Particularly those
problems which we try to do or solve in our minds. In broad sense we are
simulating mental processes in a machine, so designed by us. Remember AI is
still a far off thing in reality and there are debates both scientific and
philosophical, on whether a computer can become Intelligent at all. Another
way of putting it whether a computer can really simulate a real mental
process. But that's not for us to take here. Leave it!
If we want to solve problems in real life through a computing device we
would like to go as closely in representing the real life as possible.There
comes the term in OOP 'real life modelling'. It can be seen that in solving
real life problems, be it launching a space shuttle, or keeping the customer
and product sale information for processing we do abstraction and do
calculation, which is another form of abstract process, in turn we deal with
objects mentally, in our mind. So we represent real life objects (conceptual
objects such as numbers) in abstraction and deal with them with abstract
processes, as in mathematics. In computer too we would like to represent
objects and also like to represent processes in the form of objects. So here
comes the Object Orientation so to speak to software engineering. Now comes
that 'due time' to deal with another aspect of OO.
To go back to our example, What did you eat? Eating is an action, a form of
interaction. Which can be thought of as process which again can be thought of
as an Object, like a processes is thought of and represented as 'function' or
'routine' or 'procedure' in Non-OOPL. In OOP we can represent (abstract away)
eating as a process embodied as an object. Similarly studying is an object. In
the same line of thinking 'thing' and 'process' both be thought of as objects
and be represented in virtual plane which is computer memory. Therefore
Alice-an Object-Studies-an object-Computer Science-an Object is valid in OOP
parlance as far as our argument goes.
Can we write a piece of code here? Lets try.
class Alice {
private String name;
private String address;
private String stdID;
private Course courseOfStudy;
... other codes...
public void studies(Course sub) {
courseOfStudy=sub;
}
...
public Course getStudyCourse() {
return courseOfStudy;
}
}
class Course {
codes....
}
This way in OOP (here Java code) one can go about writing codes. I have just
given a simplistic coding. One can come up with better coding and design
approach depending on the software in mind to be written. In OOP design is very
important. So in thinking which I mentioned at the beginning the change should
be brought in. That's important! I prefer to go this way when it comes to OOPL
or OOAD, "everything is object".
Well that's what I wanted to say. You may or may not like it but comment and
say your mind.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
How do I explain loose coupling and information hiding to a new programmer? I have a programmer who I write designs for, but who can't seem to grasp the concepts of loose coupling and information hiding.
I write designs with everything nicely broken down into classes by function (data access is separate, a class for requests, a controller, about 5 classes total). They come back with a modified design where half the classes inherit from the other half (and there is no "is-a" relationship), and many public variables.
How can I get across the idea that keeping things separate makes it easier to maintain?
Ask him if it's a good idea to let you borrow $10 by giving his wallet to you for a moment and taking the money yourself.
The problem is your expectations, not the developers lack of skill. You talk about loose coupling and information hiding as if these are simple facts or mechanical techniques - they are not. Software development is a craft and the only way to get better at a craft is to practice it and slowly and incrementally improve.
You are looking for a shortcut. You want the developer to experience an "ahah!" moment and suddenly see the wisdom in your design. I say, don't hold your breath.
Adopt the mindset of a mentor. If you want him to improve his design skills, don't "hand" him a design, let him to design it! Then review the design with him. This will give him experience, a deeper sense of ownership and more willingness to listen to your suggestions before he is knee deep in implementation.
An aside - I notice that people look for these shortcuts all the time with abstract skills but not with more "physical" skills. Take tennis for example. If you were a tennis coach and a new player kept hitting his forehands long, you wouldn't just show him a YouTube video of a Roger Federer forehand and expect him to "get it". A great forehand takes YEARS of experience as you learn the feeling and use it in different scenarios - its not your muscles learning, its your brain. It is no different with software design. You get good at it by doing it over and over again. You slowly learn from your mistakes and get better at appreciating the consequences of each individual design decision.
The best way to explain these kinds of concepts is to use analogies. Pick something non-programming related and use that to explain the abstract design concepts.
The following image is pretty good at explaining the need for loose coupling:
Try to come up with stuff like this that will amuse and pertain to your new programmer.
Theory will only get you so far.
Make him try to add new features to code he's written a while ago. Then rework the old code with him so it's loosely coupled and ask him to add the same features.
He will certainly understand the avantages of writing good code.
There's nothing like a physical analogy. Walk out to your car and point out how everything complicated, hot and dangerous is pretty well isolated from the fragile human. Sit in the driver's seat and point out some of the important gauges; for example, the coolant temperature, tachometer and speedometer. Note how the gauges are remarkably similar: they all take a scalar value (from somewhere) and represent it by moving a needle to a position between min and max.
However, if you think about what's being measured, the strong motivation to maintain that isolation (aka loose coupling or information hiding) becomes a lot more obvious.
"How would you like to measure the coolant temperature? By looking at a gauge or by sticking your finger into near-boiling liquid?"
"How would you like to measure the engine rotational speed? By looking at a gauge or by letting a multi-thousand RPM crankshaft rip the flesh from your bones as you try to estimate it by hand?"
"How would you like to measure the car's speed? By looking at a gauge or by dragging your foot on the ground as you're roaring down the highway?"
From there, you can build on the concepts of "your coolant temperature gauge is-a gauge. It isn't-a boiling liquid" and so forth to more complicated concepts.
Loose coupling: The parts of a watch may be replaced by others with out breaking the whole watch. For instance you can remove one hand and it will still work.
Information hiding: The clock hands doesn't know that behind them there's a machinery.
Additional concept
High cohesion: All the elements in the watch "module" are strongly related. In this specific scenario, a battery would belong to another module or namespace.
Show him this presentation. Though it's mainly about DI, it's downright brilliant and up to the point.
I would try sitting down with him and working through a couple of peieces of code with him looking over your sholder and you explaining why you are doing what you are doing as you go along. I've found this is normally the best way to explain things.
Ask him to make a change you know it will be hard because of his design and show him how that would happen using yours.
If he complains, tell him the truth: business will ask more bizarre changes, it's a matter of time he will see that.
Just don't talk to him. That should teach him about information hiding. ;-)
I like a credit card for an example.
You have a credit card.
A credit card represents your credit history. It has a balance and a APR. It has permissions and an entire financial state. It has a id, an expiration date, and a security code. The magnetic strip summarizes all of this.
When you go to your local credit-card-accepting establishment, they don't need to know that. They don't want to know that, and it is often very dangerous if they do know that. What they need to "know" is that there is a magnetic strip which will take care of all of this, and (sometimes) that the person holding the card has id to match the name printed on the card.
Giving them more information is either (in the best case) useless, or (in the worst case) dangerous. Requiring them to know which bank to check with, making sure they know how to calculate your particular APR, or allowing them to check your balance is simply silly at that point.
If he's misinterpreting your designs, perhaps a couple pair-programming sessions will be enough to get them on track. I do have to agree with #ThomasD and will expand upon it -- the encapsulation going on here could be you. It could be a simple case of misinterpretation instead of them not understanding the concepts.
I think that OO concepts really need to be learnt practically. One really needs to do these things to understand. I go to school (engineering) and most of my peers don't really get the concept. They know in general that loose coupling is 'good' but not why. They also don't know how to achieve loose coupling. I am working on my final year project now and I got through to them by making them part of the design process. (It helped that they really did understand how and why and had an inkling of its importance)
Given your situation, here is what I would suggest:
1. Make them follow your design exactly (at least for a couple of weeks). If they want to deviate, have them discuss what and why with you. [Time constraints may not permit this].
2. Sit with them on whichever part of the design you are doing next and explain some o0f your design choices to them, with examples. Somethings that are obvious to you may need to be pointed out to them.
3. Be on the lookout for examples, both of good design and bad design and show them how that works better.
The most important task here is of delegation. You have to show them what good code looks like, maybe train them for a couple of hours. Then you agree on when to review and how you can help them (whithin your limited free time (?)) do the task well. The main thing is to get them to identify with and understand good design. Doing these things will help them 'buy-in' to the design. Once they feel it is their design, I am sure they will do better work.
Overall, I think you need to put your foot down and get them to code it right, without stifling their creativity.
I don't really have too much experience in the area. I am just giving my opinion on the subject, based on what worked for me. I hope this helps.
Note
I'd like to add that OO concepts can be learnt from books, while their application can be learnt only by practice. I have added this note in response to a comment by Christopher W. Allen-Poole.
Well if you have to explain it to them then I'm forced to ask: are they really a programmer?
Tell them they need a "college do over"?
That's a hard one because it's such a basic concept. Personally I wouldn't want to handle it because it's like someone is getting paid to learn stuff they should already know but life isn't always ideal.
I'd approach it by finding a problem that's simple enough to solved relatively simple. Public variables are usually handled best by trying to find the source of a problem when you can't see what's changin gthe variables. You can design a scenario for that.
The over-inheritance may not be their fault. They may have learnt in a course designed in the 90s that's trapped in the idea that "everything must inherit". I remember the old examples of Manager extends Employee. It's just BAD. Thing is people get taught this nonsense. Still.
For C++ the Scott Meyer Effective C++ series is probably worth poniting them to (assuming they can be bothered to read something). For Java, Josh Bloch's Effective Java ("favor composition") is along the same lines. Not sure about C#.
These sorts of books give a better approach to inheritance vs composition and also give some good examples of why inheritance is (as Josh Bloch puts it) an "implementation detail". I've also heard it described as "inheritance breaks encapsulation".
I saw a good example once of inheritance vs composition with extending the capabilities of a List in Java and how inheritance required you to know implementation details of the parent to do correct whereas composition didn't. I'll see if I can find it.
If you do Unit Testing, explain it in terms of test-writing. Alternatively, Abstract Classes and Interfaces both use loose coupling and information hiding to great effect. If you explain it to him in terms of other concepts he may already have a handle on, he'll be more likely to appreciate the concept quickly.
Programs are systems of interacting parts.
For a system of interacting parts to work together requires connections between these parts.
The more connections, the more costly the program.
For a fixed number of parts, a system whose parts are unnecessarily connected is more costly than a system whose parts are necessarily connected.
Unneccessary connections can only be formed in a system whose parts are unnecessarily exposed to connections from other parts.
Minimising unneccessary exposure of parts to connection from other parts is fundamental to cost-effective program development.
Loose coupling and information hiding are the fundamentals of connection-exposure minimisation.
This is not optional knowledge for a programmer.
This is fundamental.
You cannot be a cost-conscious programmer without this knowledge.
Asking how to explain loose coupling and information hiding to a new programmer is like asking how to explain surgery to a new surgeon? Or to explain architecture to a new architect? Or how to explain flying to a pilot.
If your, 'New programmers,' don't know loose coupling and information hiding, then they are not, 'New programmers;' they are potential programmers.
Curiously, it probably won't help to tell them to read the original two papers:
i)Loose coupling: 'Structured design,' by W.P. Stevens, G.J. Myers and L.L. Constantine.
ii)Information hiding: http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf
Just like the move from 16 bit to 32 bit windows applications where processes were given their own address space. This stopped any other process from being able to kill your application when it "accidently" walked over your data.
Moving processes to different address spaces was like treating each process as a class, and hiding the memory internally and decoupling the processes by forcing interprocess communication to only happen via an expected interface ( eg Windows Messages ).
loose coupling means the external code should use the object of derived non abstract class through abstract base class. if any change occur in set of class on which it depend then not neccessory to change in external code i.e. external code really exhibit loose coupling.
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
Definition:
CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete; The four basic functions of persistent storage. In the context of this question, specifically related to business applications.
I'll be honest, my goal when I began programming did not include being a lifetime CRUD programmer. Financial data is only so interesting for so long. And to me, that seems like the majority of programming gigs.
I'm still fairly fresh out of school, so any experience is still very beneficial, but eventually I want to move to something "less CRUD like." Currently, I have my eye on some machine control type work. However, I'm just not sure how to go in that direction.
So I want to get a feel for what other developers think about the topic.
Do you enjoy CRUD and why?
What have your experiences in CRUD been like?
How did you move from CRUD to non-CRUD work?
If you've moved, what do you like and hate?
If you've moved, what skills benefited/hastened the transition?
Edit:
I'm approaching CRUD with the attitude that I want to solve problems, not re-create the same form with different fields for a dozen different tables.
I don't think that there's really anyone who enjoys doing CRUD (well at least anyone sane). It's the most tedious part of web programming. My advice is to find or write a framework to automate this for you.
evolutility
django admin panel and django forms
However, if that's the majority of your work, you definitely should consider changing jobs.
Get a different job. Seriously, not all software development is developing business applications. Developing shipping software would make you much happier, I think. Try to find a job at a software company, and write some stuff that's going to ship to customers. Also, if you want to get into some of the low level hardware-style stuff, just start hacking away on some basic microcontrollers so you have at least some background with that.
Develop a framework to make CRUD creation easy in your line of work. Once you have done that, use the free time to improve it in terms of Usability, Security, Performance etc. That should keep your work interesting for a while.
I agree that CRUD's pretty boring. But I don't think it's the fact that it's financial data that makes it so. Perhaps you'd find that financial data a lot more interesting if, for example, it was streaming into a neural net based expert system you'd written to work out how best to invest it?
There's definitely an awful lot more to programming than CRUD. Find an aspect that interests you, and pursue it.
I am curious that no one mention task-based UI and CQRS here.
In fact, to answer your questions :
I don't enjoy CRUD...why ? see the following answers to your question
My experience of CRUD is that's a pain to write CRUD (full stack frameworks are a workaround at best I think), and often a pain for users as well
I move to non-CRUD work when I understand that building software is about giving a powerful tool for users, not a database editor with some business rules
I like to build software less coupled to full stack framework (Symfony2, ASP.NET & cie...), more fully object oriented, but I am more and more annoyed by RDBMS CRUD orientation, and more and more attracted by EventStore (Event Sourcing)
Let's get inspired by task based UI, CQRS and Event Sourcing (search Google, I do not have enough reputation to add more links...) => all together
However, I would like to be less opinionated to finish : there are some points that will not let you get out of CRUD. Some users love CRUD, they feel like in Excel...and also there are probably some applications for which CRUD fulfill all the needs...
CRUD - yes in the end we are storing, reading and updating data. But so what? That is just one part of the equation, at least in my world.
In business, data is essential, but it is the business logic and the decisions made from that data that is important. I have found it very rewarding to take raw data and use it to help business make decisions. We do that with business logic in our code, not to mention the endless ways of presenting that data in the presentation layer.
Yes in the end CRUD is involved, but it is much more than that, no?
Just my opinion.
Having a wide range of experience, my solution is to create my perfect product and start a business around it. I'm facing all sorts of interesting challenges, such as how to stream realtime data from an embedded device to a browser. This stuff gets my programming juices flowing and I have a list of important, fun features to add.
Dream up your perfect product domain, find some people who could benefit and ask them what problems they have. Once you pick up a common theme that interests you (mine was automation and power monitoring) start hacking. Of course for me it helps that my father has run the electronics company Technman for the last 30 years, and wants to create this product with me.
First, have you gone through most of what there is to know about persistent storage? It's worth figuring out how to practically apply database theory, etc. in your current job. Once you've been doing it for a few years and have it all figured out you should definitely think about expanding your horizons. I'd agree with you - unless you're building the DBMS itself - I find that the persistent storage part of the job gets to be fairly boring.
One of the best ways to get a job in a new area is to take a prototype of something relevant to the job to demonstrate at an interview. This is an incredibly powerful statement to make.
Embedded software is really my thing, but the market for this is slowly shrinking in North America and moving to the developing world, and it's a fairly specialized area to get started in.
It seems to me that the application space is still growing. Consider iPhone, J2ME, or Windows Mobile development for example. You can learn to do these on your own with a relatively small investment in equipment.
If you're not already doing this, there's also the web application space. Application server platforms like JBOSS and Glassfish are free and fairly easy to learn. Plus they provide a link back to the CRUD which you already know.
Yes, a lot of business software is CRUD. I used to work on that.
In machine control, part of that can be CRUD too. For example, logging sensor data and reporting it somewhere. Basically CRUD.
But I will admit - in machine control, it's mostly non-CRUD. You would probably enjoy doing something that actually makes an assembly line move, or builds cars, or makes motors spin at a certain speed. I know I do. At a financial institution, it's literally just numbers. Nothing "real" like a motor or a car.
Just about every program is going to have to create, read, update and delete some sort of data. In some systems this presents its' own challenges.
However most of the time reading and writing to databases is fairly easy (which is why they make databases). It is what you do with the data once you have it which is interesting, and generally unique to a business, and keeps you employed.
This article I agree with, basically a lot of programming is boring.
However if you are good and determined enough you will eventually get to do something interesting.
Find or write a way to do the CRUD portions of the applications faster. Do so, tell your manager you are done with your assigned tasks (make sure they ARE done; tested, documented, etc.), and ask what you should do next.
Just take a look to Django and move on to the interesting coding!!!
(Or RoR, or Grails, or whichever suit best to you, but CRUDS shouldn't be still being coded by hand from scratch)
Modern frameworks can do all the crud for you. Checkout the standalone GORM from the GRAILS project.
When I was an undergraduate, I changed my major from Electrical Engineering to Computer Science because I wanted to write video games. Later on, when I started working on business applications for real money, I learned that I simply enjoy solving problems with code.
You may be in the wrong profession.
In this economy, it might be hard for you to just get another job, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Find some type of work you think you would enjoy, go learn it and look for job opportunities. It doesn't hurt to make some phone calls and go on a few interviews even if you think you're unlikely to get the job. Even better, you could figure out a way to start your own company.
Get into web-dev? Seriously the level of basic crud I have to do building web-apps is pretty low, even when there's a DB.
For CRUD of windows FORM based applications developed in c# .net
RocketFramework is the answer
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
So...
I teach formal methods in software engineering. I also teach "agile methodologies". Most people seem to think this is contradictory. I think it makes a lot of sense... I also work for a company, where we need to actually get things done :) While I can apply my earned skill points on "specification" in a day-to-day basis, my colleagues typically flee away from the word "formal".
I used to think that this was due to the intrinsic way we learn how to program: we are usually driven to find a working solution, not to understand the problem. Then I thought this was due to the fact that most people in the formal community are not engineers, but mathematicians or computer scientists. Nowadays, I wonder if it just because the formal-methods community hide behind some kind of "obfuscation" law to use all the available UNICODE symbols, actively develop rude, unesthetic tools, and laugh in the face of standards.
Yes, I've been moving from a "blame them" to a "blame us" perspective ;-)
So, my question is: do you use any kind of formal methods in your company? Have you introduced them, or were they pre-requisites? What techniques do you use to clear the fog of mathematics from people's fears and incite them to use formal methods? What do you think current tools are lacking for a more general usage?
The key to getting people to buy into any methods or methodologies is to show them how it solves problems they are having. If they can see it will make their lives better you have a much improved chance of getting them to adopt the techniques.
And if you can't show them that, perhaps you wanted to adopt the methods based on philosophy rather than practicality. Unless the others share your philosophy then you're not going to get anywhere. And perhaps you shouldn't.
Over the decades there have been a great many methodologies. Newer ones always address the shortcomings of the old ones, yet projects still get in trouble and fail. Why? Because the rock stars that come up with new methodologies are rock stars, and have made a new methodology precisely because they understand the underlying issues and how to apply them. Those who come after tend to blindly follow the recipe, and it doesn't work so well.
So I think the best thing is to teach about the underlying problems and then show how various methods attempt to deal with those problems. The differences in companies, projects, and teams is so great that no one methodology can be applied successfully to all combinations. Learning to choose an appropriate tool and apply it well is crucial.
Thank you for all contributions. They are very insightful. Allow me to flame a bit (don't take it personal, though :-)
Most people seem to think that formal methods are just about program verification. Or critical systems. This may be true if we pursue the ultimate cliche: to prove we are doing the program right (v.s. validation, which asks, as a contributor said, if we are doing the right program).
But consider model finding/checking tools, such as Alloy. Learning to use a tool like this takes a negligable ammount of time for anyone used to UML and OO. Still, it can give you immediate insight over your model. It usually takes no more than 10 minutes to find a counter-example over a small enough subset of the model one's trying to use (and that includes describing the model in Alloy in the first place).
Take requirements engineering as an example. One usually draw a lot of UML. Few people use OCL, though, and many business rules are informally annoted in natural language. Why? Time constraints?
Now consider the fact that the majority just uses her/his gut-feeling to prove that a model is satisfiable. Again, why? I can take the same amount of time (probably even less, since I don't need to care about drawing aesthetics) to write that model in Alloy, and just check for satisfiability? And what kind of mathematics do I need to now? "Predicates"? Fancy name for IFs and booleans ;-) Quantifiers? Fancy names for ForEachs()...
What about big information systems? They don't need to be critical... Just try to analyze in your head a conceptual (not implementation!) diagram with over 600 classes. I see many people banging their head in the wall with easy-to-make model mistakes because they missed some constraint, or the model allows stupid things to happen.
The fact is, one does not need to use formal approaches from head to tail. Granted, I could prove a whole application in Coq, and certify that it is 100% compliant with some specification. This may be the Computer Scientist/Mathematician approach.
Still, with a GTD philisophy, why can't I delegate some tasks for the computer and allow it to help improving my development? Is it really a matter of "time", or plain, simple lack of technical abilities and will to learn/inovate?
Working with line of business IT development in an enterprise means having to transfer knowledge about the business from actual business people into the heads of developers. While I myself find abstract maths to be one of the greatest pastimes there is, it's a terrible communications tool. And communications is what it's all about. While I might conceivably have some success convincing IT people to embrace more abstract notations, I basically have no chance with the business people.
While there are some areas where I can see a role for formal methods in an enterprise (math- and logic-heavy specialist software, significant need for provable properties as in safety critical software) they provide little help with getting correct requirements on e.g. how to fulfil a customer order by issuing one or more supply orders to a set of possible external or internal providers.
I think the jury is still out on model based approaches and domain specific languages. I think they will succeed or fail depending on whether they provide quicker feedback from IT to the wishes and needs of the business side, and whether they presume business people will have to do any significant studying.
Technology is easy. Communication is hard. Formal methods may help us do things right, but those I've seen do nothing to help us do the right things. (Yes, these are cliches, but that's because they're inescapably and painfully true.)
I'm taking a course on 'Specification and Verification'. As part of the course structure we are doing the following-
1. Learning tools like PVS(Prototype Verification System) http://pvs.csl.sri.com/ and SMV(Software Modeling and Verification) http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~modelcheck/smv.html
2. Apart from that we do dissect accidents which happened because of software failures. For e.g. - Failure of Ariane V
I feel formal methods are more applicable to scenarios where the failure cost is more than the design cost. And it seems apt to use them for softwares being used in critical systems. I guess it is used in avionics, chip design etc. and the current automobile industry is also drafting it into practice.
I have tried to get people to embrace formal specification methods a few times (Z and Alloy) and have made the same expirience that you have: Most people, while feeling that they serve a useful purpose, are very uncomfortable using them for actual work.
Funny enough, the same people are more than happy to produce utterly useless UML diagrams in ginormous quantities.
I think there are two main reasons for this:
a.) Many developers are uncomfortable with the level of abstraction required by a formal approach. The fact that most entry-level mathematics education is all calculus and non discrete-mathematics might have to do something with this.
b.) Formal methods require a very bottom up design aproach where you design your core model from the ground up and make it airtight and then connect it up to the actual user requirements by providing an interface on top of it. Since we tend to have requirements drive development efforts, a top-down approach feels more natural although it often leads to inconsistent models. It's like retrofitting a basement underneath your house after it has already been built.
Formal methods make no sense in systems where the cost of failure is low.
In a production web application, you've got multiple front-end boxes, multiple back-end boxes, multiple database boxes - if a program on any one of them fails, it's a non-event. Hardware is so cheap that you can build these systems for far less than the cost of formally specifying all your software.