Related
My understanding of "factory-related" design patterns and their OOP-implementations has always been pretty simple.
A "Factory method" is a method inside a class that has an interface (or an abstract class) as a return type and constructs objects implementing this interface based on some internal logic.
A "Factory" is a class that only contains factory methods
An "Abstract factory" is an interface (or an abstract class) that only contains factory methods
But I recently stumbled upon Wikipeda articles on the subject (Factory, Abstract factory) that made me somewhat confused, especially about what a "Factory" is in OOP.
Here are several quotes:
A subroutine that returns a "new" object may be referred to as a "factory", as in factory method or factory function.
Factories are used in various design patterns
The "Abstract factory pattern" is a method to build collections of factories.
A factory is the location of a concrete class in the code at which objects are constructed
which arouse some questions:
(1)&(2) Does this mean that a factory is not a class or an object, but a piece of logic?
(2) Is "Factory" not a pattern itself?
(3) What does "collection" mean here? Is it just a way of saying "you can have several factories that implement the same interface (which is an abstract factory)"?
(4) What???
Can anyone clarify what this means? Is my initial understanding of factories incorrect?
Look at this wiki which says:
In object-oriented programming (OOP), a factory is an object for
creating other objects – formally a factory is a function or method
that returns objects of a varying prototype or class from some
method call, which is assumed to be "new".[a] More broadly, a
subroutine that returns a "new" object may be referred to as a
"factory", as in factory method or factory function. This is a basic
concept in OOP, and forms the basis for a number of related software
design patterns.
So to answer your questions specifically:
(1)&(2) Does this mean that a factory is not a class or an object, but a piece of logic?
No, it means that you can create other objects using an object(factory).
(2) Is "Factory" not a pattern itself?
There are different design patterns out of which factory pattern is one. So when you are creating objects using a factory then that patter of creating other objects is "Factory pattern"
I think you generally have it right. But, people don't like general, so it's the specifics where things go pear-shaped.
There a few things to consider:
Wikipedia is sometimes woefully bad on technical subjects because they are trying to get to a single answer where different domains or programming languages may use the terms slightly differently. Not only that, many people are not skilled at technical writing and forget that Wikipedia is for the masses, not a graduate-level computer science theory class. As such, they tend to overly focus on minutiae or use language more complicated than necessary. So, don't worry about Wikipedia. And, although there is an edit history, no real names tend to be attached to these and no one really cares who wrote which words, so no one is that motivated to do that well. Having expressed that quite cynical opinion of the whole endeavor, reading the Talk pages are very interesting, in a Cunningham's Law sort of way.
(2) The name "Factory" is a pattern, but remember that patterns are general ideas, not implementations. Different languages may employ the same idea in different ways, and those different ways may not agree. A particular language or community starts to use the term in the way most meaningful to them, however, despite what anyone else thinks. That idea may show up in bare, procedural logic; classes; objects; or whatever the tool provides.
Design Patterns (the book(s)) are generally describing shortcomings in tools. They also aren't really design patterns in the way the authors think they are. Mark Jason Dominus has a wonderful talk on this, "Design Patterns" Aren't. His basic idea is that the Gang of Four misunderstand Christopher Alexander in that they (accidentally) prescribe solutions rather than promote the idea of a locally-relevant architectural language. So, the Gang of Four patterns become reified in languages almost exactly as the described single possible solution. Readers then force those patterns as a globally-relevant language completely disconnected from what you personally are trying to build, then argue about what it all really means out of any sort of context using extremely ill-suited examples that don't matter to what anyone is trying to build. There's no reason your recommendation engine and someone's first person shooter should have the same architectural language other than your tool forcing it on both of you. FWIW, paying attention to Mark Jason Dominus is a very good professional development move. His Higher-Order Perl is one of the best programming language books I've read and certainly better than anything I've written. He knows a lot of different languages (and languages that are very different) and thinks very deeply about things.
In (3), the term "collection" is unfortunate because we tend to use that to mean a set of things that co-exist at a particular time in the same container (box, book, whatever). I think they are trying to suggest that the abstract factory is a template for future factories that cannot be presently enumerated, which is a fancy way of saying that we can use it to build factories we don't even know about yet.
In (4), the term "location" is unfortunate. An abstract factory is a way of producing concrete factories, which is a way of producing objects.
In Chapter 2: Meaningful Names Uncle Bob writes:
Don't Add Gratuitous Context
In an imaginary application called "Gas Station Deluxe," it is bad idea to prefix every class with GDS. Frankly, you are working against your tools. You type G and the press completion key and are rewarded with a mile-long list of every class in your system
Actually that what I discovered during my first days with Objective-C a bit more than one year ago. After Java it was quite disappointing but I thought I'm only one who annoyed about that :)
I understand, that "Clean Code" book refers to Java most of the time and Java has namespaces (packages) unlike Objective-C.
Do you use 2-3 letters prefix in your classes if you're building an app, not a library?
What do you think, is it bad language design, language "feature" or Uncle Bob wasn't right here?
Perhaps the key word here is gratuitous. In Objective-C, prefixes serve the important purpose of reducing the chance of name collisions. In other languages like Java and C++, the existence of support for namespaces makes the use of prefixes gratuitous (and a violation of the oft-cited DRY principle). In Objective-C, however, prefixes are meaningful, useful, and not gratuitous.
I was tempted to close this question, but I don't think I've seen a similar one asked before and it's a valid question. Here are my rather disorganized thoughts on the matter.
Many languages have a feature called namespaces, where the "fully qualified" class name is prefixed by a hierarchical series of names. For example, the String class in Java is, properly, java.lang.String, and a custom class is properly com.whatever.foobar.MyClass.
Unfortunately, namespaces have never been added to Objective-C, which means that Objective-C symbols (class names, protocol names, and a few various other types) cannot be placed in a namespace even when using Objective-C++ (which has a namespace feature for functions, constants, structures, etc.)
The only solution to prevent symbol collisions in shared code, then, is to use some form of name mangling to make your symbol names unique. In Objective-C, the convention is to use a prefix of two characters (sometimes the number varies) for all your classes.
This Uncle Bob fellow is a twit for telling you not to do this, because while you'll end up with a program that doesn't compile, you'll lose any benefit of namespaces that prefixes still offer. Does your app use plugins? You need to prefix. Does your app have a public API? You need to prefix.
In theory, code within a single application that never touches the outside world can do without prefixes, but screw it--keep coding cleanly, and add a prefix even there. It'll save you grief later.
Personally I almost never use prefixes. The only exceptions are classes that are somehow connected to each other or they all should be present.
An example:
Some client app for chat. Let's call that chat an ExampleChat.
Then I'd use ECMessage, ECUser, ECRoom, etc. to easily see which classes should there be.
Or if I make some custom cells for UITableView I'd use prefixes to keep them all close to each other and not struggle with searching them in a "mile-long list". Example:
ECTextMessageCell, ECSoundMessageCell, ECUploadMessageCell, ECJoinOrLeaveMessageCell, etc.
That's my personal opinion, which can not be the best. But it's still easiest for me.
Hope it helps
Well if you do not have Namespaces, name conflicts are likely to occur. You can see that in a lot of C libraries that they are using some kind of prefix. So I guess there are good reasons to have those prefixes and other reasons not to use it. But what should be the big problem to modify the completion to either just ignore the prefix of typing three letters instead of just one.
So in the end it seems to me a matter of taste. I guess it would be more important to have good structures classes with prefixes instead of a mess of classes without prefix....
It has nothing to do with bad language design IMHO. There was a time where software was not everywhere and why should one waste extra effort on namespaces? And still as we can see even nowadays languages without namespaces are used.....
I would say, that the world is not black or white. I do programming in java, with packages and yes, it is annoying to have a prefix in each class, as well as it is annoying and arguable to start interfaces with I (just like .Net used to do it).
Sometimes it does annoying me in objective-c however it has some legitimacy if you do not have packages in your language, since you can 'build' artificial groups of classes like 'NS', 'UI', 'MK' and so on in objc and cocoa.
Beyond avoiding collisions, one of the benefits that name prefixes gives is that you're immediately aware of what type you're really dealing with. Suppose you had the following code:
Color c = ...;
MultiValueMap m = ...;
From a cursory glance at the code and depending on what libraries you've used, those types could be from a number of different sources. You may have to lookup which include/import statement was made to understand what the type can do (e.g. you want to modify it but it's missing a method that you're sure is there).
In the iOS world, you would immediately know whether it's a UIColor vs. a CGColor and gain immediate context.
In the past at WWDC, Apple would host a session where they explained Cocoa/Objective-C coding conventions. I believe they mention this aspect of name prefixes so you might want to find one of the recordings that are made available. Other C developers (e.g. Linux kernel developers) also do not seem to think highly of C++ namespaces (among other C++ features) for various reasons.
I'm currently in University and they're pretty particular about following their standards.
They've told me this:
All classes must start with a capital
letter
Correct
public class MyClass {}
Incorrect
public class myClass {}
public class _myClass {}
All methods must start with a
lowercase letter
Correct
public void doSomething() {}
Incorrect
public void DoSomething() {}
public void _doSomething() {}
all variables must start with a
lowercase letter
Correct
string myString;
Incorrect
string MyString;
string _myString;
Yet in my last year of programming, I've been finding that people are using much different rules. It wouldn't matter if it were just a few people using the different rules, but almost everywhere I see these different practices being used.
So I just wanted to know what the reasoning behind the above standards is and why some of these other standards are being used: (are they wrong/old standards?)
Most methods I've seen start with a capital letter rather than a lowercase-- Pretty much any of Microsoft's methods I've been using from their imported namespaces. This is probably the most common one I've seen that I don't understand
A lot of people use _ for class variables.
I've seen capitals on variables ie. string MyString;
I know I've missed a few as well, if you can think of any that you could add in and give an explanation for that would be helpful. I know everyone develops their own coding styles, but many of these practices have reasons behind them and I would rather stick with what makes the most sense.
Thanks,
Matt
There is no valuable reason to choose one coding style rather than an other one.
The most important thing is to agree on a coding style with the people you are working on. And to help you to all agree on a coding style, your professor told you a coding style.
Most of the time, it is just a point of view. So, just follow your professor's coding style if you have to code with the university....
standards are arbitrary, like which side of the road to drive on; just do it like they tell you to do it ;-)
Most people are talking about naming convention style, but there are other things to consider when approaching naming conventions, such as what you actually name a routine.
Routine (methods, functions, and procedures) names should typically by in the form of a strong verb + object, regardless of how you format it. For example:
paginateResponse()
or
empty_input_buffer()
as (respectively) opposed to
dealWithResponse()
or
process_input_buffer()
Both "dealWith" and "process" are verbs, but they are ambiguous and cause any other programmers working with your code in the future to have to consult the actual routine definition to determine what it really does.
"Strong" verbs, on the other hand, as shown in the first two examples, are much more powerful in their descriptive power and really pin down what the routine is doing.
This makes your code easier to read as it is self-documenting and leads to higher levels of cohesion.
Also, as a personal point of style, I try to avoid at all costs using "my" in any name.
Standards are only standards if they are followed, and every company or institution has their own standards. It is one of the worst parts of programming. :D
Speaking specifically about the leading _. From my experience this is mostly used on variables that are declared private within a class. They are usually coupled with a method to retrieve them that has the same name without the leading _.
I am trying to follow the rules from Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries by Krzysztof Cwalina and Brad Abrams
Guidelines in this book are presented in four major forms: Do, Consider, Avoid, and Do not. These directives help focus attention on practices that should always be used, those that should generally be used, those that should rarely be used, and those that should never be used. Every guideline includes a discussion of its applicability, and most include a code example to help illuminate the dialogue.
Also, you can use FxCop to check your compliance with those rules.
Standards help with readability, and therefore improve maintainability. (because when you can read the code faster, easier and more accurately, you can debug and repair it, or enhance it, in less time and with less effort.)
They have no effect on reliability or availability, cause the computer doesn't care what the variables are named or how the souurce code is formatted.
If you code is well-organized and readable, you have achieved the objective, regardless of whether or not it conforms exactly to anyone elses "standard".
This says nothing, of course, about how to handle the environment where "standards" are high on someone's list of developer evaluation tools, or management metrics...
I see logic behind capitalisation of classes and variables; it means you can do things like
Banana banana; // Makes a new Banana called banana
I've been learning Qt recently, and they follow your conventions to the letter. I wouldn't ever follow Microsoft's naming conventions!
The standards I've seen echo what's in the Framework Design Guidelines. In the examples you've stated above, I don't see you distinguishing between visibility (public/private).
For example:
Public facing methods should be PascalCase: public void MyMethod() ...
Parameters to methods should be camelCase: public void MyMethod(string myParameter) ...
Fields which should always be private, should be camelCase. Some prefer the underscore prefix (i do) to distinguish it from method parameters.
The best bet on standards is to have your team agree upon conventions up front when the project kicks off, you'll find everything much more consistent.
Coding styles are based on personal preferences and to a large extent the features of the language that you're using.
My personal take is that it's more important to be consistent with a convention than picking the "right one". People can be dogmatic about they're preferred style and things can often delve into a religious war.
All classes must start with a capital letter - This goes hand-in-hand with variable naming and helps prevent confusion that would arise if you had both classes and variables named with the same rules. My preference is a capital letter because I'm used to it and it follows the guidelines for my preferred language (C#).
All methods must start with a lowercase letter - same goes, although I start my methods with an uppercase character (as per C# guidelines).
All variables must start with a lowercase letter - this, I believe, is dependent on you language's scoping features. Often people prefix variables (usually an underscore or a character like "g") to indicate a variable's scope ("g" might mean "global"). This can help prevent confusion where variables have the same names in different scopes. My C# driven preference: all variables have start with a lowercase letter and I use "this." to reference a global variable of the same name where scope is a problem (this usually only occurs in a class's constructor).
I can't let 3. go by without mentioning Hungarian notation (which is grossly misused and misunderstood). Joel has a great article that helped me understand these better.
In addition to the main point, that while any specific standard is essentially arbitrary but it's important to have some agreed upon standard, I'd also add that some standards are ubiquitous enough to have achieved the status of the "correct" way to do things.
For example, in java, class names in professional code are always in CamelCase. I'll qualify the always in saying that your code will compile if you break the standard, and you may occasionally find some open source projects that break the convention as well, but I believe that most people would take that as a sign that the author is not too familiar with the language. Most of your professors guidelines are fairly standard (for java, in any case). Being radically different in this case, apart from annoying your professor, will probably irritate total strangers ;)
It's interesting to me that some languages seem to have taken this standardization to heart, and enforce capitalization to have specific meaning (e.g. Haskell).
The rules you're citing are those used pretty universally in the Java world.
Are you doing Java code at university? If not, it may be that they were previously teaching Java, then switched to C# but kept the naming conventions.
In the last year and a bit of working on my team's code base I have noticed a steady progression of naming conventions.
For example, there are a lot of classes that are named to express that they are a class that helps you do something.
Here's the ones I've spotted:
MyClassUtil
MyClassFactory
MyClassHelper
MyClassManager
MyClassService
It just seems to me that over time people come up with naming conventions for relatively the same thing and so instead of having everything named in a consistent manner you wind up with a code base that has a bit of every convention. All the new stuff is named based on the latest fad naming convention and so you can pretty much tell the age of a bit of code by what convention was in fashion at the time.
What is the best way to deal with this tendency? Is it really a problem? As these naming fads come into vogue, should one use the latest fad? Should one rename all existing items with the new naming convention? Or should one just accept the variety as something that is inescapable?
They don't seem like fads... all these names hint at the purpose of the class, and those purposes are different. With programming, it's all in the name, and they should be chosen very carefully. The variety doesn't need to be escaped. The names vary because the purposes of the classes vary.
MyClassUtil
-Some utilities for working with MyClass that it didn't come with. Maybe MyClass belongs to a library you're using, but you often use some higher level functions with it and you need somewhere to put them.
MyClassFactory
-Creates instances of MyClass in an abstracted way. This allows you to write code that needs MyClass instances. It can get those new instances from a MyClassFactory. This would allow the Factory to modified in future to serve up different specific implementations of MyClass. Maybe under unit testing, the Factory just serves up dummy/mock MyClasses. This means a class that uses the factory can be tested without needing to change it, just change the factory, and voilà you can isolate the class being tested.
MyClassHelper
-Ok, I may agree, perhaps this can be more specific. It does something to help with MyClass, but what. Maybe this is a bit similar to MyClassUtil. But, probably MyClassUtil is general functions that work with MyClass, whereas the helper is initialized with a specific instance of MyClass and then can do operations on that one instance. You need a new helper for each MyClass you want to help.
MyClassManager
-Maybe this deals with a pool of MyClass instances and stores or orchestrates them. Eg. in a CommunicationsManager, the class would handle wiring together classes that handle talking to a port or connection like ethernet or serial, and a class that deals with the comms protocol being sent over it so it can transport packets, and a class that deals with the messages in those packets.
MyClassService
-A service can do things for you, like given a postcode convert it into a grid-reference. Usually a service can resolve to many specific things. With the postcode example, this class might be have implementations that can talk to different web sites to do the conversion.
All of the names of classes you've given above indicate to me a striking departure from object-oriented principles. There's no way of telling what "MyClassUtil" or "MyClassService" does. It could be anything. Class naming should be specific, and should relay clearly the actual function of the class. None of these do. The best way to deal with this tendency is to brush up on object oriented programming skills and name the classes accordingly.
Now, it could be that these examples point out the function, within the application architecture, that these classes represent, and your use of "MyClass" is simply a placeholder for something more definitive at runtime, in which case, I wouldn't view these as naming fads, but rather as descriptive indicators of the function of the class itself, with a loose hint of the application's underlying architecture.
If this is pervasive, the team needs to spend some time studying OO design: reading the source code to well-respected OO frameworks, books on design patterns or books such as Evans "Domain Driven Design".
"Util" and "Manager" are often symptoms of poor design - "code smells". So is "Helper" outside of special contexts (Rails apps) where it's well entrenched.
"Factory" and "Service" have precise technical meanings, you can check the code to see if it conforms to those design patterns.
The general remedy is to sit down with the team, and have an explicit discussion about what benefits you're expecting from these naming schemes, what makes sense and what doesn't, and then over the next few months apply refactoring techniques to phase out the names you've all decided are code smells.
Naming is important. It shouldn't be taken lightly, nor is it a subjective matter. True, there is often more than one correct answer to a given naming issue. However, there are seldom many answers consistent with previous choices, which is key.
Renaming the names to better ones and refactoring the code so that each class has a clear responsibility, is recommended. To know what kind of names to use, read Tim Ottinger's article about Meaningful Names.
When a class does only one thing, then giving it a descriptive name is usually easy. Words such as "manager" are vague and may indicate that the class is responsible for doing so many unrelated things, that no simple name is able to describe what the class does. If you can know what the class does just by looking at the name of the class, then the class has a good name.
I don't really see how Factory or Service fit in to a particular fad...
Factory is a design pattern and if the class really is a factory then it's a perfectly appropriate name.
If a class is a Windows service what's wrong with calling it service?
There isn't a problem unless you find that performing all the rename refactors is too costly even though you really want to do them.
Why not use a static analysis tool to help enforce a set of style and consistency rule?
If you're in the .NET world Microsoft provides a tool called StyleCop
In the classname examples you give does "MyClass" stand for an actual class name, so that you are really seeing names like "PersonnelRecordUtil" or "GraphNodeFactory"? MyClassFactory is a really bad actual name for a class.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
When designing a new system or getting your head around someone else's code, what are some tell tale signs that something has gone wrong in the design phase? Are there clues to look for on class diagrams and inheritance hierarchies or even in the code itself that just scream for a design overhaul, particularly early in a project?
The things that mostly stick out for me are "code smells".
Mostly I'm sensitive to things that go against "good practice".
Things like:
Methods that do things other than what you'd think from the name (eg: FileExists() that silently deletes zero byte files)
A few extremely long methods (sign of an object wrapper around a procedure)
Repeated use of switch/case statements on the same enumerated member (sign of sub-classes needing extraction)
Lots of member variables that are used for processing, not to capture state (might indicate need to extract a method object)
A class that has lots of responsibilities (violation of Single Repsonsibility principle)
Long chains of member access (this.that is fine, this.that.theOther is fine, but my.very.long.chain.of.member.accesses.for.a.result is brittle)
Poor naming of classes
Use of too many design patterns in a small space
Working too hard (rewriting functions already present in the framework, or elsewhere in the same project)
Poor spelling (anywhere) and grammar (in comments), or comments that are simply misleading
I'd say the number one rule of poor OO design (and yes I've been guilty of it too many times!) is:
Classes that break the Single
Responsibility Principle (SRP) and
perform too many actions
Followed by:
Too much inheritance instead of
composition, i.e. Classes that
derive from a sub-type purely so
they get functionality for free.
Favour Composition over Inheritance.
Impossible to unit test properly.
Anti-patterns
Software design anti-patterns
Abstraction inversion : Not exposing implemented functionality required by users, so that they re-implement it using higher level functions
Ambiguous viewpoint: Presenting a model (usually OOAD) without specifying its viewpoint
Big ball of mud: A system with no recognizable structure
Blob: Generalization of God object from object-oriented design
Gas factory: An unnecessarily complex design
Input kludge: Failing to specify and implement handling of possibly invalid input
Interface bloat: Making an interface so powerful that it is extremely difficult to implement
Magic pushbutton: Coding implementation logic directly within interface code, without using abstraction.
Race hazard: Failing to see the consequence of different orders of events
Railroaded solution: A proposed solution that while poor, is the only one available due to poor foresight and inflexibility in other areas of the design
Re-coupling: Introducing unnecessary object dependency
Stovepipe system: A barely maintainable assemblage of ill-related components
Staralised schema: A database schema containing dual purpose tables for normalised and datamart use
Object-oriented design anti-patterns
Anemic Domain Model: The use of domain model without any business logic which is not OOP because each object should have both attributes and behaviors
BaseBean: Inheriting functionality from a utility class rather than delegating to it
Call super: Requiring subclasses to call a superclass's overridden method
Circle-ellipse problem: Subtyping variable-types on the basis of value-subtypes
Empty subclass failure: Creating a class that fails the "Empty Subclass Test" by behaving differently from a class derived from it without modifications
God object: Concentrating too many functions in a single part of the design (class)
Object cesspool: Reusing objects whose state does not conform to the (possibly implicit) contract for re-use
Object orgy: Failing to properly encapsulate objects permitting unrestricted access to their internals
Poltergeists: Objects whose sole purpose is to pass information to another object
Sequential coupling: A class that requires its methods to be called in a particular order
Singletonitis: The overuse of the singleton pattern
Yet Another Useless Layer: Adding unnecessary layers to a program, library or framework. This became popular after the first book on programming patterns.
Yo-yo problem: A structure (e.g., of inheritance) that is hard to understand due to excessive fragmentation
This question makes the assumption that object-oriented means good design. There are cases where another approach is much more appropriate.
One smell is objects having hard dependencies/references to other objects that aren't a part of their natural object hierarchy or domain related composition.
Example: Say you have a city simulation. If the a Person object has a NearestPostOffice property you are probably in trouble.
One thing I hate to see is a base class down-casting itself to a derived class. When you see this, you know you have problems.
Other examples might be:
Excessive use of switch statements
Derived classes that override everything
In my view, all OOP code degenerates to procedural code over a sufficiently long time span.
Granted, if you read my most recent question, you might understand why I am a little jaded.
The key problem with OOP is that it doesn't make it obvious that your object construction graph should be independent of your call graph.
Once you fix that problem, OOP actually starts to make sense. The problem is that very few teams are aware of this design pattern.
Here's a few:
Circular dependencies
You with property XYZ of a base class wasn't protected/private
You wish your language supported multiple inheritance
Within a long method, sections surrounded with #region / #endregion - in almost every case I've seen, that code could easily be extracted into a new method OR needed to be refactored in some way.
Overly-complicated inheritance trees, where the sub-classes do very different things and are only tangentially related to one another.
Violation of DRY - sub-classes that each override a base method in almost exactly the same way, with only a minor variation. An example: I recently worked on some code where the subclasses each overrode a base method and where the only difference was a type test ("x is ThisType" vs "x is ThatType"). I implemented a method in the base that took a generic type T, that it then used in the test. Each child could then call the base implementation, passing the type it wanted to test against. This trimmed about 30 lines of code from each of 8 different child classes.
Duplicate code = Code that does the same thing...I think in my experience this is the biggest mistake that can occur in OO design.
Objects are good create a gazillion of them is a bad OO design.
Having all you objects inherit some base utility class just so you can call your utility methods without having to type so much code.
Find a programmer who is experienced with the code base. Ask them to explain how something works.
If they say "this function calls that function", their code is procedural.
If they say "this class interacts with that class", their code is OO.
Following are most prominent features of a bad design:
Rigidity
Fragility
Immobility
Take a look at The Dependency Inversion Principle
When you don't just have a Money\Amount class but a TrainerPrice class, TablePrice class, AddTablePriceAction class and so on.
IDE Driven Development or Auto-Complete development. Combined with extreme strict typing is a perfect storm.
This is where you see what could be a lot of what could be variable values become class names and method names as well as the gratuitous use of classes in general. You'll also see things like all primitives becoming objects. All literals as classes. Function parameters as classes. Then conversion methods everywhere. You'll also see things like a class wrapping another delivering a subset of methods to another class inclusive of only the ones it needs at present.
This creates the possibility to generate an near infinite amount of code which is great if you have billable hours. When variables, contexts, properties and states get unrolled into hyper explicit and overly specific classes then this creates an exponential cataclysm as sooner or later those things multiply. Think of it like [a, b] x [x, y]. This can be further compounded by an attempt to create a full fluent interface as well as adhere to as many design patterns as possible.
OOP languages are not as polymorphic as some loosely typed languages. Loosely typed languages often offer runtime polymorphism in shallow syntax that static analysis can't handle.
In OOP you might see forms of repetition hard to automatically detect that could be turned into more dynamic code using maps. Although such languages are less dynamic you can achieve dynamic features with some extra-work.
The trade of here is that you save thousands (or millions) of lines of code while potentially loosing IDE features and static analysis. Performance can go either way. Run time polymorphism can often be converted to generated code. However in some cases the space is so huge that anything other than runtime polymorphism is impossible.
Problems are a lot more common with OOP languages lacking generics and when OOP programmers try to strictly type dynamic loosely typed language.
What happens without generics is where you should have A for X = [Q, W, E] and Y = [R, T, Y] you instead see [AQR, AQT, AQY, AWR, AWT, AWY, AER, AET, AEY]. This is often due to fear or using typeless or passing the type as a variable for loosing IDE support.
Traditionally loosely typed languages are made with a text editor rather than an IDE and the advantage lost through IDE support is often gained in other ways such as organising and structuring code such that it is navigable.
Often IDEs can be configured to understand your dynamic code (and link into it) but few properly support it in a convenient manner.
Hint: The context here is OOP gone horrifically wrong in PHP where people using simple OOP Java programming traditionally have tried to apply that to PHP which even with some OOP support is a fundamentally different type of language.
Designing against your platform to try to turn it into one your used to, designing to cater to an IDE or other tools, designing to cater to supporting Unit Tests, etc should all ring alarm bells because it's a significant deviation away from designing working software to solve a given category of problems or a given feature set.