Related
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.
i've been interested in game programming for a while and tried to read quite a lot of books on OOP. The problem is for the most part the books show you code and say "add this here" "add this there" but they fail to explain "the big picture" of OOP instead of jumping around. What i want to know i how to think in terms of OOP. For example i've read this thread Object Oriented application problems in game development which gives you some good insight on howto THINK about your classes (like, player "has", "can"....world "listens"). What i would like some help with is a way of thinking, to make the right questions order to plan well which things should be left for a "player class" to do, which things to leave for the "world class" to do, which things to make "private" and which to leave "public", etc. I want to answer the "Why" not the "Hows" I don't want the code, i want the Questions or Mind Set for OOP to become a natural way to organize code.
For example, if i am dealing with collision detection. Should i leave this for the "world" to check?, should i leave it for the player to check? Which question should i ask myself?
Sorry for the "broad" question, but anything would help. From a good "book" to some tips.
PD: I do not have mucho programming experience
Best regards,
Stop reading books and get out there and program. Learn Java. Use a book to do it, but don't just go through the motions, don't download the code write it yourself. In the beginning you will wonder what is the point of OOP, but then you will get into more complex problems and you will start to appreciate the freedom that OOP gives you. Things like inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism are just terms right now for you. You kinda know what they mean but you haven't programmed enough to use the concepts. Once you use them and make classes that exemplify the concepts then you start to learn real object oriented programming. You shouldn't focus on making your game OOP, you should focus on making OOP fit your game.
So moral of the story is go program.
Write, write software. People make too big of a deal out of OOP. It's merely an approach to achieve certain design principals such as modularity and low coupling. You experiment and see what makes code - good code, how to make code flexible and maintainable. then you will understand the principles that lead to a good design, whether purely functional, procedural, OOP, or any other paradigm.
I think the key to learning OOP is indeed writing code, but start to think in terms of how you would model the real world - i.e., a car object has attributes of doors, tires, engine, and so on, while the behaviors would be perhaps start engine, change oil, ect....free your mind and think of things in a method that will relate to how you can make writing code less cumbersome and complex. Some problems are inherintly complex, but OOP can help you to sort it out and think of things in a real world fashion. You can do it...just start trying....
I read earlier edition of "Object-Oriented Thought Process" and found the book immensely helpful in understanding the whole OOP paradigm.
http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Thought-Process-3rd/dp/0672330164/
I guess the best way to 'grock' the concept of Object Oriented Programming is to think of code as modules, or building blocks - write code so it can be modularized in this fashion, then you can reuse them whenever you need that code by simply calling them as needed instead of writing the same code over and over and over again. It's as much a discipline as well as a taught subject. It is also helpful to document your code so when you go back later to reuse it - you know what kind of arguments it takes, what kind of output it generates, and how it does what you wrote it to do.
As you have said, this is a very broad question. With experience, you will have a better sense of when to use what.
While it is nice to know the "whys", remember that knowing the "hows" builds a good foundation for you to understand the "whys".
Now, to answer the specific ones that you have brought up. Think of public as something you would put in the API. If you have a "player class", what do you want the rest of your code to do with it? You want to interact with it in some sense. What is the interface to interact with the "player class"? Those that are your interface should be "public".
So what are the things that should be private? For example, if there is some attribute to the player class that has to be in a valid range (let's say between 1 to 100). How do you prevent people (other parts of the code) from corrupting that? You use private for that. This prevents other people from setting the value to 1001. This way, if it ever gets into a bad state, you know it's the class that screwed up, not the rest of the code.
As for designs, remember that designs change. When you first set out with your program, you may decide the one class should do the collision detection. (That is, your "world" has a collision detector) Maybe at first you just write your "world" with the collision detector. And later on you refactored the code out and have a class called "Collision detector". Then later on you may decide it goes somewhere else, but it's easy since you can just have another object to "have a" Collision detector.
Point is, if you make your code modular enough, this will be easy. There are no hard rules. You first write your code with the design you have in mind. Along the way you are going to find better ways of doing things.
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.
I was talking with some of the mentors in a local robotics competition for 7th and 8th level kids. The robot was using PBASIC and the parallax Basic Stamp. One of the major issues was this was short term project that required building the robot, teaching them to program in PBASIC and having them program the robot. All in only 2 hours or so a week over a couple months. PBASIC is kinda nice in that it has built in features to do everything, but information overload is possible to due this.
My thought are simplicity is key.
When you have kids struggling to grasp:
if X>10 then <DOSOMETHING>
There is not much point in throwing "proper" object oriented programming at them.
What are the essentials needed to foster an interest in programming?
Edit:
I like the notion of interpreted on the PC as learning tool. Due to the target platforms more than likely being somewhat resource constrained, I would like to target languages that are appropriate for embedded work. (Python and even Lua require more resources than the target likely to have. And I actually kinda like Lua.) I suppose that is one of the few virtues BASIC has, it has been ran on systems with less than 4K for over 30 years. C may not be a bad option if there are some "friendly" tools available such as Ch.
The most important is not a lot of boiler plate to make the simplest program run.
If you start of with a bunch of
import Supercalifragilistic from <expialidocious>
public void inherited security model=<apartment>
public : main .....
And tell them they "not to worry they aren't supposed to understand that" - you are going to put off both the brightest and the dumbest.
The nice thing about python is that printing "hello world" is print "hello world"
Fun, quick results. Capture the attention span of the kid.
Interpretive shells like most scripting languages offer (command line) that lets the student just type 1 or 2 liners is a big deal.
python:
>>> 1+1
2
Boom, instant feedback, kid thinks "the computer is talking back". Kids love that. Remember Eliza, anyone?
If they get bogged down in installing an IDE, creating a project, bleh bleh bleh, sometimes the tangents will take you away from the main topic.
BASIC is good too.
Look for some things online like "SIMPLE" : http://www.simplecodeworks.com/website.html
A team of researchers, beginning at Rice, then spreading out to Brown, Chicago, Northeastern, Northwestern, and Utah, have been studying this question for about 15 years. I can't summarize all their discoveries here, but here are some of their most important findings:
Irregular syntax can be a barrier to entry.
The language should be divided into concentric subsets, and you should choose a subset appropriate to the student's level of knowledge. For example, their smallest subset is called the "Beginning Student" language.
The compiler's error messages should be matched to the students' level of knowledge. If you are using subsets, different subsets might give different messages for the same error.
Beginners find it difficult to learn the phase distinction: separate phases for type checking and run time, with different kinds of errors. For this reason, beginners do better with a language where types are checked at run time, i.e., a dynamically typed language.
Beginners find it difficult to reason about mutable variables and mutable objects. If you teach pure functional programming, by contrast, you can leverage students' experience with high-school and middle-school algebra.
Beginning students are more engaged by an interactive programming environment than by the old edit-compile-link-go model.
Beginning students are engaged by splash and by interactivity. It's good if your language's standard library provides built-in support for creating and displaying images. It's better if those images are supported within the interactive programming environment, instead of requiring a separate player or viewer. And it's even better if your standard library can support moving images, or some other kind of animation.
Interestingly, they have got very good results with just 2D images. Even though we are all surrounded by examples of 3D computer graphics, students seem to get very engaged working with just two-dimensional images.
These results have been obtained primarily with college students, and they have been replicated at over 20 universities. However, the research team has also done some work with high-school and middle-school students. The first papers on that work are just coming out, so I'm less aware of the new findings and am not able to summarize them.
When you have kids struggling to grasp:
if X>10 then <DOSOMETHING>
Maybe it's a sign they shouldn't be doing programming?
What are the essentials needed to foster an interest in programming?
To see success with no or little effort. To create something running in a matter of minutes. A lot of programming languages can offer it, including the scary C++.
In order to avoid complication with #includes, multiple source files, modularization and compilation, why not have a look elsewhere? Try to write some Excel macros or use any other software with some basic built-in scripting language to automate certain tasks?
Another idea could be to play with web pages. It is not exactly programming, but at least easy to achieve something and show to others with pride.
This has been said on SO before, but... try Scratch. It's an incredible learning tool for kids. It teaches the basics of programming concepts in a hands-on and language-independent way. After a bit of playing around with it they can get down to learning a specific language's implementation of the concepts they already understand.
The common theme in languages that are easy for beginners - especially children to pick up is that there's very little barrier to entry, and immediate feedback. If "hello world" doesn't look a lot like print "Hello, world!", it's going to be harder for people to pick up. The following features along those lines come to mind:
Interpreted, or incrementally JIT compiled (which looks like an interpreter to the user)
No boilerplate
No attempt to enforce a specific programming style (e.g. Java requiring that everything be in a class definition, or Haskell enforcing purely functional design)
Dynamic typing
Implicit coercion (maybe)
A REPL
Breaking the problem (read program) down into a small set of sections (modules) that do one thing and do it very well.
You have to get them to stop thinking like a user and start thinking like a programmer. They need to take it one step at a time. Ask them what they have to think of in order to figure out the problem them selves and then write them down as steps. If you can then you break each step even more in the same mater. When done you will have the program in english making it simpler to program for real.
I did this with a friend that just could not get it and now he can. He used to look at something that I did and be bewildered and I would say that he has done more complex stuff than this.
One of the more persistently-present arguments I have had with other programmers is whether or not one's first language should require explicit type languages. Many are of the opinion that learning a language which requires you to explicitly declare type information is one which will teach you to program typefully. Conversely, it can be said that dynamic languages might present a less demanding learning curve. It goes either way, I suppose.
My advice: start with a simple model of how a computer works. I am particular to stack machines as good tools for teaching computation.
Remember that beginners are learning two disciplines at the same time: how computers work and the abstract logic involved (the basics of Computer Science), plus how to write programs that match their intended logic (learning a specific language's syntax and idioms). You have to address both concerns in an interwoven fashion in order for the students to quickly become effective. This is also the reason experienced programmers can often pick up new languages quickly.
It's worth noting Python grew out of a project for a language named ABC, which was targeted at beginners. For example, the required colon isn't strictly required, but was found to improve readability:
if some_condition:
do_this()
I got 3 words : Karel the Robot.
it's a really really simple 'language' that is designed to teach people the basis of programming :
Look for it on the web. You can look at this, though I never tried it :
http://karel.sourceforge.net/
While this isn't related to programming a robot, I think web programming is a great place to start with kids that age. It's how I started at that exact age. It easily translates to something kids understand if they use the web at all. Start with HTML, throw in Javascript, and soon they want to be doing features requiring server-side scripting or some sort, and things progress from there.
With the kind of kids who are already interested in robotics, though, I'd actually go for a different language like the ones already described. If you want to work in a field like robotics, you don't need to be convinced to try something hard. You need to be challenged.
A few years ago I saw a presentation at Ignite! Seattle from one of the people working on the project now known as Kodu who envisioned as a programming language for children. He spent time talking about what common language features could simply be thrown out in a programming environment meant to teach fundamentals.
A lot of cherished imperative constructs, like C-style for loops, were simply left out in favor of a simple object-messaging approach. Object-oriented programming isn't hard to understand when you think about "objects" and "messages"; the hard part is when you deal with things that programmers, but not children, care about, like inheritance and contracts and sweeping abstractions. I've got this thing (noun), now act on it (verb), in this way (adverb like quickly), when thing (sees/bumps into) something (with some attribute) (that's your if). Events are really conditions, and have all of the power of conditions, but it's up to the runtime to identify when those events happen.
This kind of event and messaging driven approach probably translates even better to robots than procedural programming would, anyway, so it might be a good way to look at the problem. Try not to think about what you'd "need" to know to program in C or Pascal or something; think about what you'd want to be able to make something do.
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.
I have been programming in object-oriented languages for years now but secretly I look at some of the things my colleagues do with envy. A lot of them seem to have some inner OO instinct that I don't have - no matter how hard I try. I've read all the good books on OO but still can't seem to crack it. I feel like the guy who gave 110% to be a professional footballer but just didn't have the natural talent to make it. I'm at a loss and thinking of switching careers - what should do I?
I would say focus less on the OO programming and focus more on the OO design. Grab a paper and a pencil (or maybe a UML modelling tool), and get away from the screen.
By practicing how to design a system, you'll start to get a natural feel for object relationships. Code is just a by-product of design. Draw diagrams and model your application in a purely non-code form. What are the relationships? How do your models interact? Don't even think about the code.
Once you've spent time designing... then translate it to code. You'll be surprised at just how quickly the code can be written from a good OO design.
After a lot of design practice, you'll start seeing common areas that can be modularized or abstracted out, and you'll see an improvement in both your designs and your code.
The easiest way is to learn concepts such as SOLID, DRY, FIT, DDD, TDD, MVC, etc. As you look up these acronyms it will lead you down many other rabbit holes and once you are done with your reading you should have a good understanding of what better object-oriented programming is!
SOLID podcasts: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=168, http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=163
SOLID breakdown: http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfOod
DRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
FIT: http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/38221.htm
DDD: http://dddcommunity.org/
DDD required reading: http://www.infoq.com/minibooks/domain-driven-design-quickly
TDD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
MVC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller
And yes, rolling up your sleeves and coding is always a good idea. Make a small project to the best of your current abilities. Then read an article from above. Then refactor your code to meet the needs of what you just read. Repeat until you have refactored the hell out of your code. At the end you should not only know what OO is all about but you should be able to explain why it is important and how to get their the first time. Learning how to refactor is a key to good code too. What is right now is not right tomorrow.
Too many people think of coding first, objects, last.
You can read all the books you want but that's not going to teach you how to think in an object-oriented fashion--that takes practice and a certain methodology.
Here are a few methods that have
helped me: When you're away from
work and open-minded you can
practice by looking at everything as an object. Don't look at these
objects and wonder how you're going
to program them, look at them as
properties and functions only and
how they relate or inherit from each
other. For example, when you see a
person, they are an object and
therefore would represent a class.
They have properties like hair
color, skin tone, height, etc. They
do certain functions as well. They
walk, talk, sleep, etc. Some of the
functions these people do returns
results. For example, their working
function returns a dollar amount.
You can do this with everything you
see because everything is an object.
Bicycle, car, star, etc.
Before coding a project, design it by
using post-it notes and a dry-erase
board. This will make good practice
until you get the hang of this.
Think of your specific
object/function/property. Each of
those items will have its own
post-it note. Place them as a
hierarchy on the dry-erase board. In
this regard, function/properties
will be placed under the object. If
you have another object, do the same
for that one. Then ask yourself, do
any of these post it notes
(objects/functions/properties)
relate to each other. If two objects
use the same function, create a
parent object (post-it note) and put
it above the others with the
reusable function under the new
note. Draw a line using the
dry-erase marker from the two child
objects to the parent.
When all this is done, then worry
about the internals of how the class
works.
My suggestion would be to learn something different.
Learn functional programming, and apply what you learn from that to OOP. If you know C++, play around with generic programming.
Learn non-object-oriented languages.
Not just because you should use all these things as well (you should), or because they should completely replace OOP (they probably shouldn't), but because you can apply lessons from these to OOP as well.
The secret to OOP is that it doesn't always make sense to use it. Not everything is a class. Not every relationship or piece of behavior should be modeled as a class.
Blindly trying to apply OOP, or striving to write the best OOP code possible tends to lead to huge overengineered messes with far too many levels of abstraction and indirection and very little flexibility.
Don't try to write good OOP code. Try to write good code. And use OOP when it contributes to that goal.
In many fields there's a "eureka" moment where everything kind of comes together.
I remember feeling frustrated in high school geometry. I didn't know which theorem to apply on each step of the proof. But I kept at it. I learned each theorem in detail, and studied how they were applied in different example proofs. As I understood not only the definition of each theorem, but how to use it, I built up a "toolbox" of familiar techniques that I could pull out as needed.
I think it's the same in programming. That's why algorithms, data structures, and design patterns are studied and analyzed. It's not enough to read a book and get the abstract definition of a technique. You have to see it in action too.
So try reading more code, in addition to practicing writing it yourself. That's one beauty of open source, you can download lots of code to study. Not all of that code is good, but studying bad code can be just as educational as studying good code.
Learn a different language! Most developers using only Java (just as an example) have only a limited understanding of OO because they cannot separate language features and concepts. If you don't know it yet, have a look at python. If you know python, learn Ruby. Or choose one of the functional languages.
The aswer is in your question ;)
Practice, practice, practice.
Review your own code and learn from the mistakes.
TDD has helped me most in improving my overall skillset including OOP.
The more code you write, the more you will notice the pitfalls of certain programming practices. After enough time, and enough code, you will be able to identify the warning signs of these pitfalls and be able to avoid them. Sometimes when I write code, I will get this itch in the back of my mind telling me that there may be a better way to do this, even though it does what I need it to. One of my greatest programming weaknesses is "over-analyzing" things so much that it starts to dramatically slow down development time. I am trying to prevent these "itches" by spending a little more time on design, which usually results in a lot less time writing code.
...secretly I look at some of the things my colleagues do with envy. A lot of them seem to have some inner OO instinct that I don't have - no matter how hard I try...
I think you have answered your own question here. Reading good code is a good start, and understanding good code is even better, but understanding the steps to get to that good code is the best. When you see some code that you are envious of, perhaps you could ask the author how he/she arrived at that solution. This is entirely dependent on your work environment as well as the relationships with your colleagues. In any event, if anyone asks me the thought process behind any code I write, I don't hesitate to tell them because I know I would want them to do the same for me.
Language designers have interpreted "Object Oriented Programming" in different ways. For instance, see how Alan Kay, the man who first used the term OOP, defined it:
OOP to me means only messaging, local
retention and protection and hiding of
state-process, and extreme
late-binding of all things. It can be
done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There
are possibly other systems in which
this is possible, but I'm not aware of
them.
(Quoted from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht81Ht/doc_kay_oop_en).
It might seem strange that he don't consider Java and C++ OOP languages! But as the designer of one of the first and best OOP languages (Smalltalk) he has his own valid reasons for that. Why did Alan Kay consider Lisp an Object Oriented language but not Java? That question demands serious consideration by anyone who claims to understand OOP.
Erlang has an altogether different implemntation of OOP, Scheme has another.
It is worth considering all these alternative views. If possible learn all these languages! That will give you a broader outlook, put some new and powerful tools in your hand and make you a better programmer.
I have summarized my experiments with implementing an OOP language, based on ideas borrowed from Smalltalk, Scheme and Erlang in this article.
public void MasteryOfOOP()
{
while(true)
/* My suggestion is: */
DO: find a lot of well-written object oriented code and read it. Then
try to use the insights from it on your own coding. Then do it again. Then
have a colleague who is a good OOP look at it and comment. Maybe post a chunk
of your code on SO and ask for how it could be improved.
Then read some more of those books. Maybe they make a little more
sense now...?
Now go back to the top of this post, and do it again.
Repeat Forever.
}
}
If you're lost as to how to design object-oriented systems, start with the data. Figure out what stuff you need to keep track of and what information naturally goes together (for example, all of the specs of a model of car group together nicely).
Each of these kinds of thing you decide to track becomes a class.
Then when you need to be able to execute particular actions (for example, marking a model of car as decommissioned) or ask particular questions (for example, asking how many of a given model of car were sold in a given year), you load that functionality onto the class it interacts with most heavily.
In general, there should always be a pretty natural place for a given bit of code to live in your class structure. If there isn't, that signals that there's a place where the structure needs to be built out.
There's too much information about objects. The most important thing is to master the basics and everything falls into place more easily.
Here's a way to think about objects. Think about data structures in procedural languages. They are a group of fields without behaviour. Think about functions that receive pointers to those data structures and manipulate the latter. Now, instead of having them separate, define the functions inside the definition of the the structures and assume the functions usually receive a pointer to the data structure to manipulate. That pointer is called this. In sum, think about objects as the combination of status (data) and behaviour (methods - the fancy name for functions in OOP).
This is the absolute basic. There are three more concepts you must absolutely master:
Inheritance - This is all about code reuse.
Encapsulation - This is all about hiding the implementation from the interface. Simply put, everything ought to be private until proven otherwise.
Polymorphism - It doesn't matter the type of the reference variable, but the type of the actual instance to know which behaviour (method) is called. Java doesn't make it easy to have this concept very visible because by definition everything is polymorphic. .Net makes it easier to understand as you decide what is polymorphic and what is not, hence noticing the difference in behaviour. This is achieved by the combination of virtual and override.
If these concepts are very well understood, you'll be fine.
One last final tip: You mention the best books. Have you read "Thinking in Java" by Bruce Eckel? I recommend this book even to people who are beginning in .Net, as the OOP concepts are clearly laid out.
Become more agile, learn junit testing and study about Domain Driven Design. I suggest the book Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software although it's a bit tough at some points.
OOP skills comes over time. Reading 1, 2 ...10 books doesn't cut it. Practice writing some code. If you are working in a programming enviornment...that can be helpful. If not try getting into one. Offer to develop some application(s) for free. You have to get your hands dirty. Remember...no application is perfect from the ground up.That's why there is re-factoring.
Also...don't get carried away with the OOP too much...it somes over time. Worry about developing fully functional applications.
Try some programming in Self, one of the most pure OO languages around. So pure, in fact, that it doesn't even have classes, only objects. It also doesn't have variables, fields, statics, attributes, only methods. Also interesting is the fact that every object in the system is also an object on the screen and vice-versa.
Some of the interesting papers on Self are Prototype-Based Application Construction Using SELF 4.0 (the Self tutorial), Self: The Power of Simplicity and Organizing Programs Without Classes. Also, Self: The Video (Randall B. Smith; Dave Ungar) is terrific, having two of the language's designers explain Self's ideas.
This works for pretty much any concept, actually, at least for me: find the language which most purely embodies the concept you want to learn about and just use it.
OO finally clicked for me after I tried to program a bank-like program that handled transactions, calculated interest, and kept track of it all. I did it while I was learning Java. I would suggest just trying it, completing it, and then when you're done go look at a GOOD solution and see what you could've done better.
I also think OOP skills strenghten mostly with practice. Consider changing your company, if you've been there for more than 3 years. Certainly, this is not valid for all jobs, but often a man gets used to the projects and practices at a company and stops advancing as time passes.
Roll up your sleeves and code!
You said the answer yourself: practice. Best solution for this is to develop a game. Use the concepts you learnt in the books there.
Have you read the chapter on OO from the first edition of Scott Meyers "Effective C++" book? It didn't make it to later editions, but it was a great explanation. The title was basically "say what you mean, mean what you say" about suitable conventions.
Actually, you might like to see my answer to a similar question over here.
HTH
cheers,
OOP is not a thing you can master by reading thousands of books. Rather you have to feel the inner concepts. Read anything but try to feel what you read. Build a concept in the back of your mind and try to match those concepts when you face a new scenario. Verify and Update your concepts as you explore new things.
Good luck!
Plan things out. Ask yourself how you want your objects to relate to eachother and seek out how things can be changed and modularized.
Code things in such a way that if you wanted to change 1 piece of the code, you only have to change that 1 piece of code and not 50 instances of it.
beer helps. seriously. lie out on a couch with an A3 sized scribble pad, a pen and a beer. Lock the dog, cat and wife outside. And think about the problem while relaxed. Don't even dare draw an API on it!
Flowcharts, Responsibity cards (CRC) and beer (but not too much) go a long way.
Easiest way to refactor code is to not have to in the first place.
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/
Those small simple rules will make you a better OO programmer. Follow the rules religiously as you code and you will find your code is better than it would otherwise be.
You'll also want to learn the Solid Principles: http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfOod
As much as these principles and ways of programming cause debate, they are the only way to truly write excellent code.
You may already write code this way and not know it-- if so, great. But if you need a goal to strive towards, these are the gold standard.
Give up! Why do you need that that OOP? Just write some usable app. Doesnt metter using OOP, procedual or functional approach.
Whataver approach you choose Python language should be sutable to practice it.
You're my target audience. Look at Building Skills in OO Design
Perhaps this can help.
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.
I asked a question previously about Dataset vs Business Objects
.NET Dataset vs Business Object : Why the debate? Why not combine the two?
and I want to generalize the question here: where is the proof that OOP is really suitable for very complex problems ? Let's take a MMO Game Engine for example. I'm not specialist at all but as I read this article, it clearly stands that OOP is far from being enough:
http://t-machine.org/index.php/2007/11/11/entity-systems-are-the-future-of-mmog-development-part-2/
It concludes:
Programming well with Entity Systems is very close to programming with a Relational Database. It would not be unreasonable to call ES’s a form of “Relation Oriented Programming”.
So isn't OOP trying to get rid off something that is here to stay ?
OOP is non-linear, Relational is linear, both are necessary depending on the part of a system so why try to eliminate Relational just because it isn't "pure" Object. Is OOP an end by itself ?
My question is not is OOP usefull. OOP is usefull, my question is rather why the purists want to do "pure" OOP ?
As the author of the linked post, I thought I'd throw in a couple of thoughts.
FYI: I started seriously (i.e. for commercial work) using OOP / ORM / UML in 1997, and it took me about 5 years of day to day usage to get really good at it IMHO. I'd been programming in ASM and non-OOP languages for about 5 years by that point.
The question may be imperfectly phrased, but I think it's a good question to be asking yourself and investigating - once you understand how to phrase it better, you'll have learnt a lot useful about how this all hangs together.
"So isn't OOP trying to get rid off something that is here to stay ?"
First, read Bjarne's paper here: http://www.stroustrup.com/oopsla.pdf
IMHO, no-one should be taught any OOP without reading that paper (and re-reading after they've "learnt" OOP). So many many people misunderstand what they're dealing with.
IME, many university courses don't teach OOP well; they teach people how to write methods, and classes, and how to use objects. They teach poorly why you would do these things, where the ideas come from, etc. I think much of the mis-usage comes from that: almost a case of the blind leading the blind (they aren't blind in "how" to use OOP, they're just blind in "why" to use OOP).
To quote from the final paragraphs of the paper:
"how you support good programming techniques and good design techniques matters more than labels and buzz words. The fundamental idea is simply to improve design and programming through abstraction. You want to hide details, you want to exploit any commonality in a system, and you want to make this affordable.
I would like to encourage you not to make object-oriented a meaningless term. The notion of ‘‘object-oriented’’ is too frequently debased:
– by equating it with good,
– by equating it with a single language, or
– by accepting everything as object-oriented.
I have argued that there are–and must be–useful techniques beyond object-oriented programming and design. However, to avoid being totally misunderstood, I would like to emphasize that I wouldn’t attempt a serious project using a programming lan-
guage that didn’t at least support the classical notion of object-oriented programming. In addition to facilities that support object-oriented programming, I want –and C++ provides features that go beyond those in their support for direct expression of concepts and relationships."
Now ... I'd ask you ... of all the OOP programmers and OOP projects you've seen, how many of them can honestly claim to have adhered to what Bjarne requests there?
IME, less than the majority.
Bjarne states that:
"The fundamental idea is simply to improve design and programming through abstraction"
...and yet many people invent for themselves a different meaning, something like:
"The fundamental idea is that OOP is good, and everything-not-OOP is inferior"
Programmers who have programmed sequentially with ASM, then later ASM's, then pascal, then C, then C++, and have been exposed to the chaos that was programming pre-encapsulation etc tend to have better understanding of this stuff. They know why OOP came about, what it was trying to solve.
Funnily enough, OOP was not trying to solve every programming problem. Who'd have htought it, to say how it's talked about today?
It was aimed at a small number of problems that were hugely dangerous the bigger your project got, and which it turned out to be somewhere between "good" and "very good" at solving.
But even some of them it isn't any better than merely "good" at solving; there are other paradigms that are better...
All IMHO, of course ;)
Systems of any notable complexity are not linear. Even if you worked really hard to make a system one linear process, you're still relying on things like disks, memory and network connections that can be flaky, so you'll need to work around that.
I don't know that anyone thinks OOP is the final answer. It's just a way of dealing with complexity by trying to keep various problems confined to the smallest possible sphere so the damage they do when they blow up is minimized. My problem with your question is that it assumes perfection is possible. If it were, I could agree OOP isn't necessary. It is for me until someone comes up with a better way for me to minimize the number of mistakes I make.
Just read yr article about Entity Systems, which compares ES to OOP, and it is flagrantly wrong about several aspects of OOP. for e.g., When there are 100 instances of a class, OOP does not mandate that there be 100 copies of the classes methods loaded in memory, only one is necessary. Everything that ES purports to be able to do "better" than OOP because it has "Components", and "Systems", OOP supports as well using interfaces and static classes, (and/or Singletons).
And OOP more naturally fits with the real-world, as any real or imagined Problem Domain, consisting of multiple physical and/or non-physical items and abstractions, and the relationships between them, can be modeled with an appropriately designed hiearchical OOP class structure.
What we try to do is put an OO style on top of a relational system. In C# land this gets us a strongly typed system so that everything from end to end can be compiled and tested. The database has a hard time being tested, refactored, etc. OOP allows us to organize our application into layers and hiearchies which relational doesn't allow.
Well you've got a theoretical question.
Firstly let me agree with you that OOP is not a solve-all solution. It's good for somethings, it's not good for others. But that doesn't mean it doesn't scale up. Some horribly complex and huge systems have been designed using OOP.
I think OOP is so popular because it deserves to be. It solves some problems rather wonderfully, it is easy to think in terms of Objects because we can do that without re-programming ourselves.
So until we can all come up with a better alternatives that actually works in practical life, I think OOP is a pretty good idea and so are relational databases.
There is really no limit to what OOP can deal with - just as there is no real limit to what C can deal with, or assembler for that matter. All are Turing-complete, which is all you really need.
OOP simply gives you a higher-level way of breaking down the program, just as C is a higher-level than assembler.
The article about entity systems does not say that OO cannot do this - in fact, it sounds like they are using OOP to implement their Entities, Components, etc. In any complex domain there will be different ways of breaking it down, and using OOP you can break it down to the object/class level at some point. This does not preclude having higher-level conceptual frameworks which are used to design the OOP system.
The problem isn't the object oriented approach in most situations, the problem is performance and actual development of the underlying hardware.
The OO paradigm approach software development by providing us with a metaphor of the real world, were we have concepts which defines the common accepted and expected properties and behaivour of real objects in the world. Is the way that humans model things and we're able to solve most of the problems with it.
In theory you can define every aspect of a game, system or whatever using OO. In practice if you do, your program will simply behave too slow so the paradigm is messed up by optimizations which trade the simplicity of the model from performance.
In that way, relational databases are not object oriented so we build an object oriented layer between our code and the database... by doing so you lost some of the performance of the database and some of its expressiveness because, from the point of view of OO paradigm a relational database is a full class, is an very complex object that provides information.
From my point of view OO is an almost perfect approach in the theoretical sense of the word, as it maps closely to the way we, humans, think, but it doesn't fit well with the limited resources of the computational development... so we take shortcuts. At the and, performance is far more important than theoretical organization or clearness so this shortcuts become standards or usual practices.
That is, we are adapting the theoretical model to our current limitations. In the times of cobol in the late 70's object oriented was simply impossible... it would imply to many aspects and too little performance so we used a simplified approach, so simplified you didn't have objects or class, you had variables ... but the concept was, in that time, the same. Groups of variables described related concepts, properties that today will feet into an object. Control sequences based on a variable value where used to replace class hierarchies and so on.
I think we've been using OOP for a long time and that we'll continue using it for a long time. As hardware capabilities improve we'll be able to unsimplify the model so that it becomes more adaptable. If I describe perfectly (almost) the concept of a cat (which involves a lot of describing for a lot of concepts involved) that concept will be able to be reused everywhere... the problem here is not, as I've said, with the paradigm itself but with our limitations to implement it.
EDIT: To answer the question about why use pure OO. Every "science" wants to have a complete model to represent things. We have two physic models to describe nature, one at the microscopic level and one for the macroscopic one, and we want to have just one because it simplifies things it provides us with a better way to prove, test and develop things. With OO the same process applies. You can't analytically test and prove a system if the system doesn't follow a precise set of rules. If you are changing between paradigms in a program then your program cannot be properly analized, it has to be disected in each one, analized and then analized again to see that the interactions are correct. It makes a lot more difficult to understand a system because in fact you have two or three system that interact in different ways.
Guys, isn't the question more about ORM than OOP? OOP is a style of programming - the thing that actually gets compared is a Relational Database mapped onto objects.
OOP is actually more than just the ORM! It's also not just the inheritance and polymorphism! It's an extremly wide range of design patterns and above all it's the way we think about programming itself.
Jorge: it's ok that you've pointed out the opitimization part - what you didn't add is that this step should be done last and in 99% cases the slow part is not the OOP.
Now plain and simple: the OOP style with all the principals added to it (clean code, use of design patterns, not to deep inheritance structures and let's not forget unit testing!) it a way to make more people understand what you wrote. That in turn is needed for companies to keep their bussiness secure. That's also a recepie for small teams to have better understanding with the community. It's like a common meta language on top of the programming language itself.
It's always easier to talk about concepts from a purists point of view. Once you're faced with a real life problem things get trickier and the world is no longer just black and white. Just like the author of the article is very thorough in pointing out that they're not doing OOP the "OOP purist" tells you that OOP is the only way to go. The truth is somewhere in between.
There is no single answer, as long as you understand the different ways (OOP, entity systems, functional programming and many more) of doing things and can give good reason for why you're choosing one over the other in any given situation you're more likely to succeed.
About Entity Systems. It's an interesting conception but it brings nothing really new. For example it states:
OOP style would be for each Component to have zero or more methods, that some external thing has to invoke at some point. ES style is for each Component to have no methods but instead for the continuously running system to run it’s own internal methods against different Components one at a time.
But isn't it same as Martin Fowler's anti-pattern called "Anemic Domain Model" (which is extensively used nowadays, in fact) link ?
So basically ES is an "idea on the paper". For people to accept it, it MUST be proven with working code examples. There is not a single word in the article on how to implement this idea on practice. Nothing said about scalability concerns. Nothing said about fault tolerance...
As for your actual question I don't see how Entity Systems described in article can be similar to relational databases. Relational databases have no such thing as "aspects" that are described in the article. In fact, relational - based on tables data structure - is very limited when it comes to working with hierarchical data, for example. More limited than for example object databases...
Could you clarify what exactly you are trying to compare and prove here? OOP is a programming paradigm, one of the many. It's not perfect. It's not a silver bullet.
What does "Relation Oriented Programming" mean? Data-centric? Well, Microsoft was moving towards more data-centric style of programming until they given up on Linq2Sql and fully focused on their O/RM EntityFramework.
Also relational databases isn't everything. There is many different kinds of database architectures: hierarchical databases, network databases, object databases ect. And those can be even more efficient than relational. Relational are so popular for nearly the same reasons why OOP is so popular: it's simple, very easy to understand and most often efficient enough.
Ironically when oo programming arrived made it much easier to build larger systems, this was reflected in the ramp up in software to market.
Regarding scale and complexity, with good design you can build pretty complex systems.
see ddd Eric Evans for some principle patterns on handling complexity in oo.
However not all problem domains are best suited to all languages, if you have the freedom to choose a language choose one that suits your problem domain. or build a dsl if that's more appropriate.
We are software engineers after all, unless there is someone telling you how to do your job, just use the best tools for the job, or write them :)
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.
Would like to know what a programmer should know to become a good at Designing particluarly in Java/J2EE technologies.
Firstly Good Design transcends whichever language you choose to use to implement the design. Good software design is about managing complexity to create easy to understand code which is robust and maintainable. Key points are
Work in the highest level of abstraction you can at any time
Encapsulate and hide areas of complexity
Understand what value there is in clear and consistent naming
In my mind Good design is achieved by a combination of understanding good practice and being creative. And in my experience the hardest part of design is in achieving the right functional decomposition of the problem into smaller sub-problems. It is important to understand that the process of achieving this decomposition is almost always an iterative process rather than a methodical top down process. You have to be prepared to modify or throw away your previous design decomposition until you have something which is maintainable.
It is hard to talk about good design and not to mention two things in particular
Object Oriented Proctices
Design Patterns
While some languages are object oriented, some are purely object based and others, like C, were created prior to object based design becoming wide spread, the principles and practices can be applied in any language. Most of the code I write is in C and I try to use object like practices where possible.
Design Patterns present good solutions to common problems and give these solutions names. I have found the study of Design Patterns a key to understanding what good design can achieve.
For beginning to understand design, you should probably first write some toy-projects. Write them, take a step back once in a while and reflect, go back and rewrite. Lather, rinse and repeat.
Making mistakes in design is the best way to understand how you should do better next time. There are of course some methodologies you should be aware of, most important of which patterns and information hiding. Beyond that there are various sources/books for software architecture. For example: Software Architecture in Practice (2nd Edition) (The SEI Series in Software Engineering) by Len Bass, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman
Try to look closely at where information belongs. Should the interest-rate be a field in Account or AccountType for (a small) example.
Last but not least, try to involve yourself in discussions about design. Debate with your peers, but also pick the brains of more experienced designers/architects.
And stay critical! Although Software Design is more of an exact field than building design with (some) clear pros and cons, taste/preference and rhetoric is still part of the deal.
I would recommend a couple of things:
Read about some design patterns. The original Gang of Four book helps with OO design. If your are writing Enterprise applications I can't recommend Martin Fowlers Enterprise Application Architecture book too much.
Patterns give you the essential words to describe designs both to yourself and to others. Just reading about the different approaches makes you see new possibilities. If you are looking at J2EE, patterns like Inversion of Control are essential.
Obsess about loose coupling
The essentials of good design is preventing tight coupling. Anything that can be used to move your code in to loosely couples layers is going to help your overall design.
Read other people's code. Study some high profile open source code in the your technology area.
Just studying other peoples code quickly gives you a feel for nice looking designs compared to cluttered Big Ball Of Mud approaches.