I was discussing an exercise design problem with my friend and we came up with different solution. We are learning OOPS concept, so decided to show our solution here to experts and get their opinion.
Problem: Design class for Shirts. Shirts have different features like pattern, size, color etc.
Friend's Solution:
My Solution:
There would be concrete implementations, for example, small, medium, large for Size. Red, Blue, Yellow for Color. Isn't using Interfaces for Pattern, Size, Color is an overkill? Polymorphism should be used to encapsulate behavior, but I am using it in different way.
May some expert please let us know how we should hold different features of Shirt in Object Oriented Way? How to handle new features (e.g., shades) if they come in?
Your friend's idea is simple and I like to start with simple ideas and improve them when needed. On the other hand your solution provides great flexibility and you took OOP to the maximum by using an interface type for each variable instead of native types.
Regarding the last thing you mentioned on handling new features, well in both designs you have to open the class for modification which is not a great thing as it violates the OCP principle (classes should be open extension, closed for modification).
I would solve that by letting the Shirt class hold properties which are common to all shirts like size, color, price or whatever and store the rest of the features that can vary in a HashMap or a PropertyList.
This gives great flexibility as when new features come-in you just call a method like AddFeature(name, value) that stores the feature in the HashMap.
I wanna make one point pretty clear, don't deep dive into design and let it consume your time. Instead start with simple ideas and improve them as you go on. Great design comes from experience and careful analysis of the business domain.
I'm currently writing a basic platformer game with the idea of learning the basis patterns of a 2D game development. One of them is the amazing A Star Pathfinding. After reading and study a few articles (two of them are the best: Link and http://theory.stanford.edu/~amitp/GameProgramming/Heuristics.html#S7), tutorials and source code, I did a simple A Star Pathfinding using the Manhattan method that works well for my personal learning process.
The next, and logical step, is to do the same on a platform scenario where the NPC must jump or climb ladders to reach the goal target. I've found these screencastings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2xoJfT6sek and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc7tu-KwfoU that show perfectly what I want to do.
I haven't found for the moment any resource that explains the method to implement it. Can someone give me a starting point I can work with?
Thanks in advance
As far as I can tell, the only difference that jumping/ladders make is that they affect possible movement. So, all your algorithm has to do is take into account where a character can and can't move to, and the costs (if you're implementing that) of moving there.
I haven't any clean A* code around fit for an example but let me give you a few pointers when implementing A*.
First off, the most essential tip that I often find neglected in tutorials is use a priority queue.
Whenever you generate possible move states, put them into the priority queue with priority being the value of your heuristic for that move state. This differentiates A* from DFS (which uses a stack and backtracking) or simple greedy path finding (which simply goes to the best state with respect to the present state).
Next, mind those pointers! I don't know what language will you implement this but even if you do it in some language that abstracts pointers (unlike C), you have to understand the concept of a deep copy versus a plain shallow copy. I remember the first time I did A* (in Python) and I did not pay attention to this. My states were repeatedly overwritten leading to unpredictable behavior. Turns out I did not make deep copies!
That said, depending on how complex the task you have in mind, all those deep copies might clutter up your memory. While good memory management will help, for big problem instances that need real-world performance, I tend to just use iterative-deepening A* so that after every iteration, I get to unclutter my memory.
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.
As a second interview I get people to sit down and write code...I try to make the problem really technology independent.
My programming problems that I have don't really exercise peoples OO abilities. I tend to try and keep the coding problem solvable within 2 hours ish. So, I've struggled to find a problem small enough and involved enough that it exposes peoples OO design skills.
Any suggestions?
This is a problem that I use with some trainings, looks simple but is tricky OOP-wise:
Create model classes that will properly represent the following constructs:
Define a Shape object, where the object is any two dimensional figure, and has the following characteristics: a name, a perimeter, and a surface area.
Define a Circle, retaining and accurately outputting the values of the aforementioned characteristics of a Shape.
Define a Triangle. This time, the name of the triangle should take into account if it is equilateral (all 3 sides are the same length), isoceles (only 2 sides are the same length), or scalene (no 2 sides are the same).
You can go on and on with quadrelaterals (which include squares, rectangles, rhombi, etc) and other polygons.
The way that they would solve the above problems would reveal the people who understand OOP apart from those who don't.
ideally, you want to present a problem that appears difficult, but has a simple, elegant, obvious solution if you think in OO terms
perhaps:
we need to control access to a customer web site
each customer may have one or more people to access the site
different people from different customers may be able to view different parts of the site
the same person may work for more than one customer
customers want to manage permissions based on the person, department, team, or project
design a solution for this using object-oriented techniques
one OO solution is to have a Person, a Customer, an Account, and AccountPermissions, where the Account specifies a Person and a Customer and an optional Parent Account. the use of a recursive Account object collapses the otherwise cumbersome person/team/department/project structure a direct ERD solution might yield
I have used the FizzBuzz Programming Test. And shockingly can corroborate the claims made by the article. As a second follow up I have asked candidates to compute the angle(s) between the hands on an analog clock. We set up a laptop with VS 2008 installed and the stub in place. all they have to do is fill in the implementation.
I am always stunned at how poorly candidates do on these two questions. I really am.
Designing Social Security Application is something which I ask a lot of people during interviews.
The nice thing about this is everyone is aware of how it works and what things to keep track of.
They also have to justify their design and this really helps me get inside their head :)
(As there is lots of flexibility here)
Kind regards,
Whether or not people do some coding in the interview, I make it a point to ask this:
Tell me about a problem you solved recently using object oriented programming. You'd be surprised how often people cannot answer that simple question. A lot of times I get a blank stare, or they say something like "what do you mean? I program in .NET, which is all object oriented."
These aren't specifically OO Questions, but check out the other questions tagged interview-questions
Edit: What about implementing some design patterns? I don't have the best knowledge in the area but it seems as if you would be getting two questions for the price of one. You can test for both OO and Design pattens in the one question.
How about some sort of simple GUI. It's got inheritance, overriding, possibly events. If you mean for them to actually implement as part of the test then you could hand them a blank windows-form with an OnPaint() and tell them to get to it.
You could do worse than ask them to design a MapReduce library with a single-process implementation. Will the interface still work for a distributed implementation? What's the exception-handling policy? Should there be special support for chaining MapReduce jobs in a pipeline? What's the interface to the inputs and outputs? How are inputs chunked up? Can different inputs in one job go to different mappers? What defaults are reasonable?
A good solution in Python takes about a page of code.
I've got a super simple set. The idea is mainly to use them to filter out people who really don't know their stuff rather than filtering in the rock stars.
These are all 5 minute white-board type questions, so they are really not that hard. But the act of writing up code, and talking through it reveals a lot about a candidate - and is brilliant for exposing those that can otherwise BS through the talk.
Write a method that takes a radius of a circle as an argument, and returns the area of the circle (You would be amazed how many people struggle on this one!)
Write a program that accepts a series of numbers as arguments from the command line. Add them up, and print the sum
Write a class that acts as a keyed counter (basically a map that keeps track of how many times each key is "counted")