Related
I want to optimize my angularjs frontend application and cleanup the code to provide better code quality.
I thought about bringing in more abstraction, since I implemented a lot of similiar looking, but slightly different controllers.
My question(s) are the following:
Are there common techniques to recognize bad code and optimize it?
How can one determine if code is either good, bad or redundant?
Where should one start, when trying to provide better code quality in
an existing software project?
To answer your questions:
Yes there are: by looking at the code itself experienced programmers can tell if the code has certain characteristics or not. Some metrics exist that could indicate alarm signals in terms of quality like "many dots" in object-oriented languages (same in Javascript) which indicates close coupling. Here is a comprehensive list.
By looking at it or as written before with static code analysis.
As others stated don't optimize or refactor just for the sake to have a good looking code base. When you need to touch existing code again to e.g. add a feature or fix a bug then start to look for code redundancies and many other signals that might indicate to refactor the code. Martin Fowler wrote an excellent book about it with step-by-step examples which IMO is a must-read for every developer. Also a good starting point is Misko's site. He talks about testability but "good" code is well testable.
What's really important before refactoring is to have a strong automated test base to rely on. If not add tests and go really slow to make sure you don't break existing functionality.
The topic is really huge and impossible to work through in a post here but I think it's one of the most important ones that makes an experienced programmer.
If a code is good or bad is your own opinion.
To make the code look better and more efficient I would do something like this:
Don't make the lines to long.
Use variables that make sense.
Use tabs and enter when it is too messy.
There are a whole lot more things to clean up your code, but these are just some examples.
If the code works - don't touch it :)
Then when you work on bug fixes or new features\changes - see if you can also gradually improve pieces of code you are working with. The more you work with the code the better understanding of overall picture you should get and opportunities to improve and optimize should become more obvious. (you should also continue learning from other sources - books, internet, other codebases)
There is now magic "one size fits all" solution :) but yes, you can start with simple style changes as suggested in the other answer.
The process you refer to is commonly known as Refactoring. There are a number of standard techniques for improving code; Martin Fowler's book "Refactoring" has a list, with examples.
Many popular IDEs have refactoring tools built-in.
One of the processes in agile development is known as "red/green/refactor". Red means your code doesn't pass its unit tests; green means it passes (i.e. it does what it's supposed to do), and "refactor" means you make it elegant, maintainable and clean. Because you have a unit test, you know the refactoring doesn't break the code.
Where to start is a tough question - I typically recommend refactoring when you're fixing bugs. You may as well write a unit test to expose the bug, and tidy up the code while fixing the bug. Because that module has a bug, it's likely to be high-risk, so you should improve the code quality.
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.
Improve this question
One of the most frequent arguments I hear for not adhering to the SOLID principles in object-oriented design is YAGNI (although the arguer often doesn't call it that):
"It is OK that I put both feature X and feature Y into the same class. It is so simple why bother adding a new class (i.e. complexity)."
"Yes, I can put all my business logic directly into the GUI code it is much easier and quicker. This will always be the only GUI and it is highly unlikely that significant new requirements will ever come in."
"If in the unlikely case of new requirements my code gets too cluttered I still can refactor for the new requirement. So your 'What if you later need to…' argument doesn't count."
What would be your most convincing arguments against such practice? How can I really show that this is an expensive practice, especially to somebody that doesn't have too much experience in software development.
Design is the management and balance of trade-offs. YAGNI and SOLID aren't conflicting: the former says when to add features, the latter says how, but they both guide the design process. My responses, below, to each of your specific quotes use principles from both YAGNI and SOLID.
It is three times as difficult to build reusable components as single use
components.
A reusable component should be tried out in three different
applications before it will be sufficiently general to accept into a reuse
library.
— Robert Glass' Rules of Three, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering
Refactoring into reusable components has the key element of first finding the same purpose in multiple places, and then moving it. In this context, YAGNI applies by inlining that purpose where needed, without worrying about possible duplication, instead of adding generic or reusable features (classes and functions).
The best way, in the initial design, to show when YAGNI doesn't apply is to identify concrete requirements. In other words, do some refactoring before writing code to show that duplication is not merely possible, but already exists: this justifies the extra effort.
Yes, I can put all my business logic directly into the GUI code it is much easier and quicker. This will always be the only GUI and it is highly unlikely that signifcant new requirements will ever come in.
Is it really the only user interface? Is there a background batch mode planned? Will there ever be a web interface?
What is your testing plan, and will you be testing back-end functionality without a GUI? What will make the GUI easy for you to test, since you usually don't want to be testing outside code (such as platform-generic GUI controls) and instead concentrate on your project.
It is OK that I put both feature X and feature Y into the same class. It is so simple why bother adding a new class (i.e. complexity).
Can you point out a common mistake that needs to be avoided? Some things are simple enough, such as squaring a number (x * x vs squared(x)) for an overly-simple example, but if you can point out a concrete mistake someone made—especially in your project or by those on your team—you can show how a common class or function will avoid that in the future.
If, in the unlikely case of new requirements, my code gets too cluttered I still can refactor for the new requirement. So your "What if you later need to..." argument doesn't count.
The problem here is the assumption of "unlikely". Do you agree it's unlikely? If so, you're in agreement with this person. If not, your idea of the design doesn't agree with this person's—resolving that discrepancy will solve the problem, or at least show you where to go next. :)
I like to think about YAGNI in terms of "half, not half-assed", to borrow the phrase from 37signals (https://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch05_Half_Not_Half_Assed.php). It's about limiting your scope so you can focus on doing the most important things well. It's not an excuse to get sloppy.
Business logic in the GUI feels half-assed to me. Unless your system is trivial, I'd be surprised if your business logic and GUI haven't already changed independently, several times over. So you should follow the SRP ("S" in SOLID) and refactor - YAGNI doesn't apply, because you already need it.
The argument about YAGNI and unnecessary complexity absolutely applies if you're doing extra work today to accommodate hypothetical future requirements. When those "what if later we need to..." scenarios fail to materialize, you're stuck with higher maintenance costs from the abstractions that now get in the way of the changes you actually have. In this case, we're talking about simplifying the design by limiting scope -- doing half, rather than being half-assed.
It sounds like you're arguing with a brick wall. I'm a big fan of YAGNI, but at the same time, I also expect that my code will always be used in at least two places: the application, and the tests. That's why things like business logic in UI code don't work; you can't test business logic separate of UI code in that circumstance.
However, from the responses you're describing, it sounds like the person is simply uninterested in doing better work. At that point, no principle is going to help them; they only want to do the minimum possible. I'd go so far as to say that it's not YAGNI driving their actions, but rather laziness, and you alone aren't going to beat laziness (almost nothing can, except a threatening manager or the loss of a job).
There is no answer, or rather, there is an answer neither you nor your interlocutor might like: both YAGNI and SOLID can be wrong approaches.
Attempting to go for SOLID with an inexperienced team, or a team with tight delivery objectives pretty much guarantees you will end up with an expensive, over-engineered bunch of code... that will NOT be SOLID, just over-engineered (aka welcome to the real-world).
Attempting to go YAGNI for a long term project and hope you can refactor later only works to an extent (aka welcome to the real-world). YAGNI excels at proof-of-concepts and demonstrators, getting the market/contract and then be able to invest into something more SOLID.
You need both, at different points in time.
The correct application of these principles is often not very obvious and depends very much on experience. Which is hard to obtain if you didn't do it yourself. Every programmer should have had experiences of the consequences of doing it wrong, but of course it always should be "not my" project.
Explain to them what the problem is, if they don't listen and you're not in a position to make them listen, let them do the mistakes. If you're too often the one having to fix the problem, you should polish your resume.
In my experience, it's always a judgment call. Yes, you should not worry about every little detail of your implementation, and sometimes sticking a method into an existing class is an acceptable, though ugly solution.
It's true that you can refactor later. The important point is to actually do the refactoring. So I believe the real problem is not the occasional design compromise, but putting off refactoring once it becomes clear there's a problem. Actually going through with it is the hard part (just like with many things in life... ).
As to your individual points:
It is OK that I put both feature X
and feature Y into the same class. It
is so simple why bother adding a new
class (i.e. complexity).
I would point out that having everything in one class is more complex (because the relationship between the methods is more intimate, and harder to understand). Having many small classes is not complex. If you feel the list is getting to long, just organize them into packages, and you'll be fine :-). Personally, I have found that just splitting a class into two or three classes can help a lot with readability, without any further change.
Don't be afraid of small classes, they don't bite ;-).
Yes, I can put all my business logic
directly into the GUI code it is much
easier and quicker. This will always
be the only GUI and it is highly
unlikely that signifcant new
requirements will ever come in.
If someone can say "it is highly unlikely that signifcant new requirements will ever come in." with a straight face, I believe that person really, really needs a reality check. Be blunt, but gentle...
If in the unlikely case of new
requirements my code gets too
cluttered I still can refactor for the
new requirement. So your 'What if you
later need to ...' argument doesn't
count
That has some merit, but only if they actually do refactor later. So accept it, and hold them to their promise :-).
SOLID principles allow software to adapt to change - in both requirements and techical changes (new components, etc), two of your arguments are for unchanging requirements:
"it is highly unlikely that signifcant new requirements will ever come in."
"If in the unlikely case of new requirements"
Could this really be true?
There is no substitute for experience when it comes to the various expenses of development. For many practitioners I think doing things in the lousy, difficult to maintain way has never resulted in problems for them (hey! job security). Over the long term of a product I think these expenses become clear, but doing something about them ahead of time is someone else's job.
There are some other great answers here.
Understandable, flexible and capable of fixes and improvements are always things that you are going to need. Indeed, YAGNI assumes that you can come back and add new features when they prove necessary with relative ease, because nobody is going to do something crazy like bunging irrelevant functionality in a class (YAGNI in that class!) or pushing business logic to UI logic.
There can be times when what seems crazy now was reasonable in the past - sometimes the boundary lines of UI vs business or between different sets of responsibilities that should be in a different class aren't that clear, or even move. There can be times when 3hours of work is absolutely necessary in 2hours time. There are times when people just don't make the right call. For those reasons occasional breaks in this regard will happen, but they are going to get in the way of using the YAGNI principle, not be a cause of it.
Quality unit tests, and I mean unit tests not integration tests, need code that adheres to SOLID. Not necessarily 100%, in fact rarely so, but in your example stuffing two features into one class will make unit testing harder, breaks the single responsibility principle, and makes code maintenance by team newbies much harder (as it is much harder to comprehend).
With the unit tests (assuming good code coverage) you'll be able to refactor feature 1 safe and secure you won't break feature 2, but without unit tests and with the features in same class (simply to be lazy in your example) refactoring is risky at best, disastrous at best.
Bottom line: follow the KIS principle (keep it simple), or for the intellectual the KISS principle (kis stupid). Take each case on merit, there's no global answer but always consider if other coders need to read / maintain the code in the future and the benefit of unit tests in each scenario.
tldr;
SOLID assumes, you understand (somewhat atleast), the future changes to the code, wrt SRP. I will say that is being optimistic about capability to predict.
YAGNI on the other hand, assumes most of the times you don't know future direction of change, which is pessimistic about capability to predict.
Hence it follows that SOLID/SRP asks you to form classes for the code such that it will have single reason for change. E.g. a small GUI change or ServiceCall change.
YAGNI says (if you want to force apply it in this scenario), since you don't know WHAT is going to change, and if a GUI change will cause a GUI+ServiceCall change (similarly A backend change causing GUI+SeviceCall change), just put all that code in single class.
Long answer :
Read the book 'Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices'
I am putting short excerpt from it about SOLID/SRP :
"If,[...]the application is not changing in ways that cause the two responsibilities to change at different times, there is no need to separate them. Indeed, separating them would smell of needless complexity.
There is a corrolary here. An axis of change is an axis of change only if the changes occur. It is not wise to apply SRP—or any other principle, for that matter—if there is no symptom."
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
The question seems pretty simple, and so is the answer. I am a developer who recently started working. So far I had taken few bachelor and master level courses on OOP. And yet I am not comfirtable and confident with OOP concepts. Recently, I was searching for employment opportunities and I found that many employers were keen to know how much confident I am on OOP concepts.
I have a very strong theorotical knowledge on OOP concepts. Although this theorotical knowledge is helping me in clearing the interviews and getting a job but when it comes to implementation I am getting dumb. If you ask me what is reflection then you will get a perfect answer from me, but if someone asks me why and where do we use it, then I get fumbled.
Now I really want to know what I should do when I am not getting an opportunity to implement all or most of the OO concepts in my projects.
Also I really feel with all the latest development tools and programming environments, many of the programmers are getting pampered to use already built components, frameworks and libraries and this is might create a vacuum of good architects.
I want to become a successful architect and for that I think I must be very strong in this area.
Then I thought of learning NHibernate where you will be dealing with objects entirely.
Now what I need is few valuable tips that would help me in grasping all or most of the OOP concepts.
It sound like you're missing real programming experience. Nothing will substitute that.
Go working, exercise, read, learn from your more experienced colleagues. Eventually you'll get it.
As for very advanced tools, you are correct. They produce code monkeys in ever increasing amounts. If you see it right now you are on a good start. Just keep to the path. Good architects will always be needed and valued.
You want to start looking at design patterns. Knowing the when, how and why of using OOP is more valuable than knowing OOP itself.
Frameworks are great and I don't fault people for using them. But, there is still a lot of room for great architects in this space. Exploit the gap of programmers knowing how to use them, but not why or when. Frameworks quickly become a hammer looking for a nail for many developers. Open source is your friend here - dive into the source code and learn them from the inside out so you really understand what's being done and why.
In my experience, you learn the "conceptual" side of development from school and the "applications" side from real experience. There is no substitute for working on the job; no matter how much schooling I've had it never equates to what I've learned doing the real work. This is why it's also a good idea to get an internship in college if you're able.
As for the value of OOP itself, I find that it's most useful in large projects and in team projects. The whole point is to break down the solution into workable "conceptual" elements which makes intercommunication between team members easier as well as visualizing the solution. Visualization is the other big pro to OOP.
One thing to note about OOP IMHO is that entry level developers tend to overuse a lot of the OOP concepts. Not everything requires inheritance. Design patterns are extremely useful but also shouldn't be over applied. Look at your problem and first try to think of a solution on your own then compare it to known patterns and see if they provide a better answer. Simplicity can't be overrated.
Also, playing with tools like UML editors and Mind Mappers (such as XMind) are helpful in getting into the right frame of mind.
Check and see if there are any programming groups around you too; I find it's a good way to meet people that you can talk programming with and another advantage of OOP is its much easier to communicate programming ideas with.
Your next stop should be to look into design patterns (Applied OO). For an introductory text, check out Headfirst Design Patterns.
Interesting question. To some extent I've grown up with Object programming, I've evolved as the various frameworks have evolved, I'd never before considered how it would feel to come to a landscape where so many sophisticated frameworks already exist. Their very presence tends to inhibit that degree of fumbling and stumbling and generallly getting it wrong that leads to deeper understanding.
My perception though is that serious development is still a matter of good design, it's not all just fill-in-the-gaps, hey IOC framwork tell me what to do, programming.
You can enhance your theoretic knowlege by studying the "how" of the framworks you use. But I guess what you need is practical experience, can't comment upon what's open to you in your place of work, but if you can't get it there you may need to do some "hobbyist" or open source development.
One thing I would recommend is trying to get involved in design discussions, try to get your designs reviewed by experienced developers. With any luck they may even say: "hey why didn't you use reflection there ..."
It is the 'thinking' that is important, in OOP one needs to change thinking
while going about programming/developing in oop environment or using OOP
paradigm.
I have faced many a times this question myself: why use OOPL or
Object Oriented Programming Language when I can develop software in Procedural
Programming Language? Why use OOP methodology at all? What benefit does it have
what other non-oop doesn't?
I read from many sources (numerous books and articles on the subject to name!)
to trace the real reason, to hit the fundamental underlying idea or principle
for its being there as a paradigm of software engineering. I think what I found
is simple and that's why I suggest to bring a change in thinking.
If we look around we see things that surround us and the things we interact
with, directly or indirectly. We recognize them with names, we gave them.
Whatever the things are, either they exist in real plane or conceptual plane
and we 'know' them 'recognize' them and interact with them. And importantly we
'name' them. This naming is important because to interact with the 'things' and
for that knowledge of that interaction we need 'Names'.
What have you eaten today? Chocolate and coffee. So you have 'interacted' with
chocolate and coffee. Now Chocolate and coffee are edibles we have (humans)
have given names and with those names we recognize them. And also, we, in our
knowledge of our interaction with them - lets say keeping record of our
interaction with chocolate and coffee, know them with names as having
interacted with.
Interaction is a general term I am using here. Actually in our case, in the
example, you have performed an 'action' - eating. Through 'eating' action you
have interacted with chocolate and coffee. Now think this way, you, chocolate,
coffee are entities in the real world through an action came in interaction.
You may say a 'Process'.
What course Alice has enrolled for? Computer Science.
Computer Science does not have a real existence in the world in the sense a man
exists or a tree or a house, or coffee cup or other 'tangible things' exist. It
is a subject, 'conceptual thing'. The study of computer science has some
'topics' to be studied (or to have interaction with through our mental
faculty/processes)e.g discrete mathematics, design and analysis of algorithms,
Data Structure etc. Together they are named, as a subject of study, 'Computer
Science'. Now Alice 'study' (interaction) Computer Science.What is happening
here? OK, if We now think this way and say that Alice is a thing, an object.
Computer Science is a thing, an object.
Coffee is an object. Chocolate is an object. You, again, are an object. We find
that objects interacting with objects. Fantastic! One may exclaim! That's the
real world scenario! Actually it is a generalization reached through
Abstraction.
It is nothing but -at the surface level at least- naming with
meaning. Or you can say 'meaningful naming'. It is a process. It is so natural
and obvious to us that we simply overlook it.
In OOP we simply have to bring ourselves to this form of thinking process,
knowing and reminding ourselves that "Objects interact with Objects". Oh!
There are more than thinking only this. You have to remember that an object
may interact with itself! Think of you, what are you doing when you are
thinking? Yeah! And there is another very important thing I shall come to
in due time. Though I think it is obvious. But in due time. OK. What we
really do with computers? Actually we solve problems. Particularly those
problems which we try to do or solve in our minds. In broad sense we are
simulating mental processes in a machine, so designed by us. Remember AI is
still a far off thing in reality and there are debates both scientific and
philosophical, on whether a computer can become Intelligent at all. Another
way of putting it whether a computer can really simulate a real mental
process. But that's not for us to take here. Leave it!
If we want to solve problems in real life through a computing device we
would like to go as closely in representing the real life as possible.There
comes the term in OOP 'real life modelling'. It can be seen that in solving
real life problems, be it launching a space shuttle, or keeping the customer
and product sale information for processing we do abstraction and do
calculation, which is another form of abstract process, in turn we deal with
objects mentally, in our mind. So we represent real life objects (conceptual
objects such as numbers) in abstraction and deal with them with abstract
processes, as in mathematics. In computer too we would like to represent
objects and also like to represent processes in the form of objects. So here
comes the Object Orientation so to speak to software engineering. Now comes
that 'due time' to deal with another aspect of OO.
To go back to our example, What did you eat? Eating is an action, a form of
interaction. Which can be thought of as process which again can be thought of
as an Object, like a processes is thought of and represented as 'function' or
'routine' or 'procedure' in Non-OOPL. In OOP we can represent (abstract away)
eating as a process embodied as an object. Similarly studying is an object. In
the same line of thinking 'thing' and 'process' both be thought of as objects
and be represented in virtual plane which is computer memory. Therefore
Alice-an Object-Studies-an object-Computer Science-an Object is valid in OOP
parlance as far as our argument goes.
Can we write a piece of code here? Lets try.
class Alice {
private String name;
private String address;
private String stdID;
private Course courseOfStudy;
... other codes...
public void studies(Course sub) {
courseOfStudy=sub;
}
...
public Course getStudyCourse() {
return courseOfStudy;
}
}
class Course {
codes....
}
This way in OOP (here Java code) one can go about writing codes. I have just
given a simplistic coding. One can come up with better coding and design
approach depending on the software in mind to be written. In OOP design is very
important. So in thinking which I mentioned at the beginning the change should
be brought in. That's important! I prefer to go this way when it comes to OOPL
or OOAD, "everything is object".
Well that's what I wanted to say. You may or may not like it but comment and
say your mind.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently read an interesting comment on an OOP related question in which one user objected to creating a "Manager" class:
Please remove the word manager
from your vocabulary when talking
about class names. The name of the
class should be descriptive of its'
purpose. Manager is just another word
for dumping ground. Any
functionality will fit there. The word
has been the cause of many extremely
bad designs
This comment embodies my struggle to become a good object-oriented developer. I have been doing procedural code for a long time at an organization with only procedural coders. It seems like the main strategy behind the relatively little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)? Most OO articles/books, etc. use examples of problems that are inherently easy to transform into object groups (e.g., Vehicle -> Car) and thus do not provide much guidance for breaking down more complex systems.
First of all, I'd stop acting like procedural code is wrong. It's the right tool for some jobs. OO is also the right tool for some jobs. So is functional. Each paradigm is just a different point of view of computation, and exists because it's convenient for certain problems, not because it's the only right way to program. In principle, all three paradigms are mathematically equivalent, so use whichever one best maps to the problem domain. IMHO, if using a multiparadigm language it's even ok to blend paradigms within a module if different subproblems are best modeled by different worldviews.
Secondly, I'd read up on design patterns. It's hard to understand OO without some examples of the real-world problems it's good for solving. Head First Design Patterns is a good read, as it answers a lot of the "why" of OO.
Becoming good at OO takes years of practice and study of good OO code, ideally with a mentor. Remember that OO is just one means to an end. That being said, here are some general guidelines that work for me:
Favor composition over inheritance. Read and re-read the first chapter of the GoF book.
Obey the Law of Demeter ("tell, don't ask")
Try to use inheritance only to achieve polymorphism. When you extend one class from another, do so with the idea that you'll be invoking the behavior of that class through a reference to the base class. ALL the public methods of the base class should make sense for the subclass.
Don't get hung up on modeling. Build a working prototype to inform your design.
Embrace refactoring. Read the first few chapters of Fowler's book.
The single responsibility principle helps me break objects into manageable classes that make sense.
Each object should do one thing, and do it well without exposing how it works internally to other objects that need to use it.
A 'manager' class will often:
Interogate something's state
Make a decision based on that state
As an antidote or contrast to that, Object-Oriented design would encourage you to design class APIs where you "tell don't ask" the class itself to do things itself (and to encapsulate its own state): for more about "tell don't ask" see e.g. here and here (and maybe someone else has a better explanation of "tell don't ask" but these are first two articles that Google found for me).
It seems like the main strategy the little OO code we produce is to break the problem down into classes that are easily identifiable as discrete units and then put the left over/generalized bits in a "Manager" class.
That may well be true even at the best of times. Coplien talked about this towards the end of his Advanced C++: Programming Styles and Idioms book: he said that in a system, you tend to have:
Self-contained objects
And, "transactions", which act on other objects
Take, for example, an airplane (and I'm sorry for giving you another vehicular example; I'm paraphrasing him):
The 'objects' might include the ailerons, the rudder, and the thrust
The 'manager' or autpilot would implement various commands or transactions
For example, the "turn right" transaction includes:
flaps.right.up()
flaps.left.down()
rudder.right()
thrust.increase()
So I think it's true that you have transactions, which cut across or use the various relatively-passive 'objects'; in an application, for example, the "whatever" user-command will end up being implemented by (and therefore, invoking) various objects from every layer (e.g. the UI, the middle layer, and the DB layer).
So I think it's true that to a certain extent you will have 'bits left over'; it's a matter of degree though: perhaps you ought to want as much of the code as possible to be self-contained, and encapsulating, and everything ... and the bits left over, which use (or depend on) everything else, should be given/using an API which hides as much as possible and which does as much as possible, and which therefore takes as much responsibility (implementation details) as possible away from the so-called manager.
Unfortunately I've only read of this concept in that one book (Advanced C++) and can't link you to something online for a clearer explanation than this paraphrase of mine.
Reading and then practicing OO principles is what works for me. Head First Object-Oriented Analysis & Design works you through examples to make a solution that is OO and then ways to make the solution better.
You can learn good object-oriented design principles by studying design patterns. Code Complete 2 is a good book to read on the topic. Naturally, the best way to ingrain good programming principles into your mind is to practice them constantly by applying them to your own coding projects.
How can I break my procedural habits (like the Manager class)?
Make a class for what the manager is managing (for example, if you have a ConnectionManager class, make a class for a Connection). Move everything into that class.
The reason "manager" is a poor name in OOP is that one of the core ideas in OOP is that objects should manage themselves.
Don't be afraid to make small classes. Coming from a procedural background, you may think it isn't worth the effort to make a class unless it's a thousand lines of code and is some core concept in your domain. Think smaller. A ten line class is totally valid. Make little classes where you see they make sense (a Date, a MailingAddress) and then work your way up by composing classes out of those.
As you start to partition little pieces of your codebase into classes, the remaining procedural code soup will shrink. In that shrinking pool, you'll start to see other things that can be classes. Continue until the pool is empty.
How many OOP programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, the light bulb changes itself.
;)
You can play around with an OO language that has very bad procedural support like Smalltalk. The message sending paradigm will force you into OO thinking.
i think you should start it with a good plan.
planning using CLASS Diagrams would be a good start.
you should identify the ENTITIES needed in the applicaiton,
then define each entitie's ATTRIBUTES, and METHODS.
if there are repeated ones, you could now re-define your entities
in a way that inheritance could be done, to avoid redundancy.
:D.
I have a three step process, this is one that I have gone through successfully myself. Later I met an ex-teacher turned programmer (now very experienced) who explained to me exactly why this method worked so well, there's some psychology involved but it's essentially all about maintaining control and confidence as you learn. Here it is:
Learn what test driven development (TDD) is. You can comfortably do this with procedural code so you don't need to start working with objects yet if you don't want to. The second step depends on this.
Pick up a copy of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. It's essentially a catalogue of little changes that you can make to existing code. You can't refactor properly without tests though. What this allows you to do is to mess with the code without worrying that everything will break. Tests and refactoring take away the paranoia and sense that you don't know what will happen, which is incredibly liberating. You left to basically play around. As you get more confident with that start exploring mocks for testing the interactions between objects.
Now comes the big that most people, mistakenly start with, it's good stuff but it should really come third. At this point you can should reading about design patterns, code smells (that's a good one to Google) and object oriented design principles. Also learn about user stories or use cases as these give you good initial candidate classes when writing new applications, which is a good solution to the "where do I start?" problem when writing apps.
And that's it! Proven goodness! Let me know how it goes.
My eureka moment for understanding object-oriented design was when I read Eric Evans' book "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software". Or the "Domain Driven Design Quickly" mini-book (which is available online as a free PDF) if you are cheap or impatient. :)
Any time you have a "Manager" class or any static singleton instances, you are probably building a procedural design.