I have seen a number of different topics on StackOverFlow discussing the differences between Procedural and Object-Oriented Programming. The question is: If the program uses an object can it still be considered procedural?
Yes, and a lot of early Java was exactly that; you had a bunch of C programmers get into Java because it was "hot", people who didn't think in OOP. Lots of big classes with lots of static methods, lots of RTTI in case statements, lots of use of instanceof.
GLib has GObject which is object oriented programming implemented in pure C. While you can build up an API which begins to "feel" like OOP, it's still just plain "C" code with no actual classes (from the compiler's point of view). If you get far enough so you're starting to implement Object Oriented design patterns then I would call that OOP no matter what language it's written in. It's all about the feel of the code and how you have to think to write against it.
Procedural programming has to do with how you structure your program and model your domain. Just because at some point you instantiate an object, doesn't alone make your program oriented towards objects (i.e., object-oriented).
The distinction is entirely subjective. For example, if you code a C library using state passing, you are implementing something of a "tell" pattern, with the state as the object.
Classes can be considered as super types. When we converted from VB3 to VB6 our first pass was finding all the types we used, then finding all the subroutines and functions that took that type as a parameter. We moved those into the class definition, removed the parameter and then tested leaving the original flow of control intact
Then we refactored our flow of control to use various patterns and object oriented techniques.
The heart of object orientation is about how you decompose the problem into smaller parts, and how these parts work together. It's about the philosophy. Using OO language does not necessarily mean a program written in it is OO; it's just easier to do OO with a language that supports common OO concepts out of the box.
To answer the question: "If the program uses an object can it still be considered procedural?" - That depends on what your definitions of object and procedural programming are. But in my opinion, the answer is resounding "Yes". "Objects" are only a part of the philosophy that is OO and using them "somewhere in your application" does not mean you're doing OO.
The answer to your question is, yes. For example. I've got an old php legacy page to maintain. Most of the code is procedural but I decided that some things can be maintained much easier if I plug Zend Framework into the existing stuff and write some of my own classes to replace some of the old code. In general this application is still written and functioning in a mainly procedural way but here and then a class or another are instantiated and used. I guess there is no clear border between procedural and OO. You can do it cleaner or less clean. If you don't have enough layers for the size and complexity of your app you'll end up with more procedural code automatically too...
Related
What makes everyone went from sequential languages to object languages ?
According to Wikipedia the features of object oriented programming are data abstraction, encapsulation, messaging, modularity, polymorphism, and inheritance. For me data abstraction, encapsulation, messaging, modularity also exist in sequential languages. Only the polymorphism, and inheritance are specific to object oriented programming. Is this correct ?
Many non-OOP languages can certainly build those features. Just looking from a C vs. C++ area, you can provide encapsulation in C by using opaque pointers, with a suite of functions that take/return these opaque objects, and an internal set of functions that are all file-static. You can even do polymorphism and inheritance with function pointers and encapsulated objects.
Then again, we could also all still be programming in assembly or machine language. The reason to bring any feature into a language is to make it easier to use that feature.
Again, looking at C vs. C++, dealing with opaque pointers and the like is annoying, repetitive, and semi-difficult. With C++, you can achieve the same effect with much less code. It's obvious to everyone what is going on. It's a lot more difficult to break (though not impossible). Plus, you make it easy to break encapsulation if you need, since you can define language constructs like friend that provide exceptions where necessary.
And then there are those things that are really hard to implement without direct language support. Operator overloading is impossible of course, but function overloading is really, really hard to do without language support.
Most important of all, if it's in the language, then everyone does it the same way. There are multiple ways of implementing inheritance and polymorphism in C. All of them are incompatible with one another. And while C++ users could do any of those methods, they opt to use the actual language feature 99.9% of the time. This means it's much easier to read someone else's code and know what's going on. You don't have to guess what is opaque and what isn't. You don't have to guess at what is derived from what. You know it, since everyone does it the same way.
In any case, most of the OOP-lite language (C++, Java, C#) can be used more or less like a procedural one if you want. You just ignore the objects. So in many ways, they get the best of both worlds.
The advantage can be summarized this way:
OOP can represent the real world more directly and precisely than previous paradigms, so the program becomes simpler and easier to understand.
And about this:
For me data abstraction, encapsulation, messaging, modularity also exist in sequential languages. Only the polymorphism, and inheritance are specific to object oriented programming.
Most human-readable language can provide data abstraction, encapsulation, messaging and modularity (otherwise they would be machine-languages), but OOP supports better these concepts. For example, to set text of a widget in C, you would do something like this:
HANDLE myEditBox = CreateEditBox(hParent, ...);
SetText(myEditBox, "Hello!");
Notice you have a handle to an object, not an actual object. Now in C++ (OOP) you can make this:
EditBox myEditBox(...);
myEditBox.SetText("Hello!");
The difference is subtle, but important. The C style SetText(handle, "Hello!") does not make any distinction between the handle and other parameters. You don't even know that there's a message to the object. Now the C++ style object.SetText("Hello!") it's like telling explicitly: Hey, object, set your text to "Hello!". Here, the notion of message and receiver (the object) are explicit.
C++ can also destroy objects automatically if they are not declared as pointers, which eliminates calls such as DestroyObject(myEditBox).
Also without OOP you have very poor encapsulation, because most things are implemented with structures which contains only public members. So you can't hide data from users, which mean somenone might try to change things in an unexpected way, that may cause bugs. This is quite common in large programs.
I have a very limited understanding of OOP.
I've been programming in .Net for a year or so, but I'm completely self taught so some of the uses of the finer points of OOP are lost on me.
Encapsulation, inheritance, abstraction, etc. I know what they mean (superficially), but what are their uses?
I've only ever used OOP for putting reusable code into methods, but I know I am missing out on a lot of functionality.
Even classes -- I've only made an actual class two or three times. Rather, I typically just include all of my methods with the MainForm.
OOP is way too involved to explain in a StackOverflow answer, but the main thrust is as follows:
Procedural programming is about writing code that performs actions on data. Object-oriented programming is about creating data that performs actions on itself.
In procedural programming, you have functions and you have data. The data is structured but passive and you write functions that perform actions on the data and resources.
In object-oriented programming, data and resources are represented by objects that have properties and methods. Here, the data is no longer passive: method is a means of instructing the data or resource to perform some action on itself.
The reason that this distinction matters is that in procedural programming, any data can be inspected or modified in any arbitrary way by any part of the program. You have to watch out for unexpected interactions between different functions that touch the same data, and you have to modify a whole lot of code if you choose to change how the data is stored or organized.
But in object-oriented programming, when encapsulation is used properly, no code except that inside the object needs to know (and thus won't become dependent on) how the data object stores its properties or mutates itself. This helps greatly to modularize your code because each object now has a well-defined interface, and so long as it continues to support that interface and other objects and free functions use it through that interface, the internal workings can be modified without risk.
Additionally, the concepts of objects, along with the use of inheritance and composition, allow you to model your data structurally in your code. If you need to have data that represents an employee, you create an Employee class. If you need to work with a printer resource, you create a Printer class. If you need to draw pushbuttons on a dialog, you create a Button class. This way, not only do you achieve greater modularization, but your modules reflect a useful model of whatever real-world things your program is supposed to be working with.
You can try this: http://homepage.mac.com/s_lott/books/oodesign.html It might help you see how to design objects.
You must go though this I can't create a clear picture of implementing OOP concepts, though I understand most of the OOP concepts. Why?
I had same scenario and I too is a self taught. I followed those steps and now I started getting a knowledge of implementation of OOP. I make my code in a more modular way better structured.
OOP can be used to model things in the real world that your application deals with. For example, a video game will probably have classes for the player, the badguys, NPCs, weapons, ammo, etc... anything that the system wants to deal with as a distinct entity.
Some links I just found that are intros to OOD:
http://accu.informika.ru/acornsig/public/articles/ood_intro.html
http://www.fincher.org/tips/General/SoftwareEngineering/ObjectOrientedDesign.shtml
http://www.softwaredesign.com/objects.html
Keeping it very brief: instead of doing operations on data a bunch of different places, you ask the object to do its thing, without caring how it does it.
Polymorphism: different objects can do different things but give them the same name, so that you can just ask any object (of a particular supertype) to do its thing by asking any object of that type to do that named operation.
I learned OOP using Turbo Pascal and found it immediately useful when I tried to model physical objects. Typical examples include a Circle object with fields for location and radius and methods for drawing, checking if a point is inside or outside, and other actions. I guess, you start thinking of classes as objects, and methods as verbs and actions. Procedural programming is like writing a script. It is often linear and it follows step by step what needs to be done. In OOP world you build an available repetoire of actions and tasks (like lego pieces), and use them to do what you want to do.
Inheritance is used common code should/can be used on multiple objects. You can easily go the other way and create way too many classes for what you need. If I am dealing with shapes do I really need two different classes for rectangles and squares, or can I use a common class with different values (fields).
Mastery comes with experience and practice. Once you start scratching your head on how to solve particular problems (especially when it comes to making your code usable again in the future), slowly you will gain the confidence to start including more and more OOP features into your code.
Good luck.
Hi I'm writing this question because I'm a newbie in ObjC and a lot of doubts came to my mind when trying to make my fist training app. The thing is that I have a strong background in C, I've been programming in Java for the last year and I've done some collage stuff with Smalltalk (I mencione this because those are my programming references and those are the languages I'm comparing ObjC with).
The first problem I've encountered is that I don't know where to draw a line between ObjC and C, for example when dealing with math operations, Should I use math.h or there is a more "object-way" like you can do in Smalltalk (aNumber raisedTo: 3) ? How does a person with no background at all in C learns ObjC?.
Another thing that I couldn't find was a collection's protocol (I've looked over the Foundation Framework documentation given by Apple). Because I want to implement an expresion tree class and I wanna know if there are methods that all collections should implement (like in Smalltalk or Java) or I gotta check by hand every collection and see if there is a cool method that my new collection should have.
I don't know if I'm being too stupid or I'm searching for features that the language/framework doesn't have. I want to program in ObjC with the ObjC style not thinking in C, Java or Smalltalk.
Sorry if the question was too long.
Absolutely use <math.h>. You don't way to pay message sending overhead for functions that run in 30 cycles. Even function call overhead seems pretty steep at that point.
More generally, use as much or as little of C-style as you want to. I've seen Objective-C that was nothing but a couple C modules glued together with objective C messages, and I've seen Objective-C that essentially zero lines of code without the square brackets. I've seen beautiful, effective code written both ways. Good code is good code, however you write it.
In general, you'll use C features for numerical calculations. You'll generally use objects for most other things. The reason for this is that objects are way heavier than a simple scalar — there's just no benefit to it. Why would you ever write [[NSNumber numberWithInteger:1] numberByAddingNumber:[NSNumber numberWithInteger:2]] when you can just write 1+2? It's not only painful to read, it's far slower and it doesn't gain you anything.
On the other hand, Cocoa has rich object libraries for strings, arrays, networking and many other areas, and using those is a big win.
Knowing what's there — and thus what the easiest way to do something is — is just a matter of learning. If you think something should be there and you can't find it, you can ask either here or on Apple's Cocoa-Dev mailing list.
As for a collection protocol — there really isn't one. The closest thing to it is the NSFastEnumeration protocol, which defines precisely one method: countByEnumeratingWithState:objects:count:. This lets you use the for (id someObject in someCollection) syntax to enumerate the objects in a collection. Otherwise, all the collections define their own independent interfaces.
The first problem I've encountered is that I don't know where to draw a line between ObjC and C.
My rule is to use C wherever it makes sense to you. Objective-C has the benefit of letting you choose when to be procedural and when to be object-oriented. Go with what fits best with the code you're writing.
Another thing that I couldn't find was a collection's protocol [...] I want to implement an expresion tree class and I wanna know if there are methods that all collections should implement (like in Java) or I gotta check by hand every collection and see if there is a method that my collection should have.
Unlike Java, Objective-C does not have a master protocol for collections like the java.util.Collection interface. Also, there aren't a proliferation of specific container implementations as in Java. However, that gives you the freedom to implement a collection in a way that makes sense for your code.
For building a tree-like structure, you might take a look at NSTreeNode to see if it might be useful to leverage. (It may be more than you're need or want, but might be worth a shot.)
As far as rolling your own collection, I've learned a lot while creating CHDataStructures.framework, and you're welcome to use whatever you like from that code, or just look at my attempts at creating Cocoa-like structures, designed to complement the Foundation collections and operate similarly. Good luck!
Try to use each language for what it's good at. IMHO, this would include Obj-C objects but C-like code implementing methods. So use math.h and concise C code to implement logic, but don't be shy about using Obj-C classes to organize your larger blocks of functionality into something that makes sense.
Also, try to interact with the frameworks using their style so you're not running upstream.
As has been mentioned, there’s no real protocol for abstract collection classes (aside from the NSFastEnumeration protocol which provides the for(id item in collection) syntax when implemented), but there are conventions to follow.
Apple’s Introduction to Coding Guidelines for Cocoa covers some of this, and there is in fact a section on naming collection methods which covers the general cases (though note that generic container classes such as NSArray use the term “Object” as opposed to “Element” listed in the examples there – i.e. addObject:, removeObject:, and so on).
Following the patterns listed here (among others) is actually crucial when you want your classes to be KVC-compliant, which allows other users to observe changes in your object’s properties.
I've lately been thinking a lot about alternatives to the class-based approach to object-orientation.
One thing which bugs me in today's languages is that we often use static classes / singletons to design single (global) objects because there isn't any other way to do it, so in my opinion it's rather a hack than a feature.
Another thing is that Java for instance allows the programmer to have enums with additional data (global state) and functionality which make them kind of object in my eyes, too.
Anyway, what I'd like to know is whether you have any ideas for a different approach to object-orientation in a compiled and efficient language (therefore, creating objects by prototyping is probably not a good idea) or, if you don't have any, whether there're things in the classic OO approach which bug you a lot, too.
[EDIT]:
Just to make things clear. As indicated above I already know prototype-based programming.
Check out prototype-based programming.
Take a look at the Actor Model. It's something like classes except for being asynchronous. If each actor is a Finite-State-Machine, you would have a potentially powerful system.
Erlang uses something like that, I'm told... at least similar. The point with the actor model is that it doesn't need to be implemented purely, and so does not need to be part of Erlang.
I started a small language that used that model once a few years ago. I might try it again sometime.
Now that my flame retardent suit is safely secured, I can say it: I dislike OOP.
The central problem I have with it is that it tries to come up with a single taxonomy in which every unit of functionality truly belongs.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, producing a good taxonmy is hard. People suck at creating them. Secondly, I am not convinced that you can actually structure a sensible, maintainable, hierarchy that will withstand change in a project containing a lot of entities; the whole practice of refactoring is basically acknowledging the difficulty of creating large, all incompassing taxanomies.
Actually, I think that OOP is over-engineered. Everything you can do with OOP can be done with higher-order functions (HOFs). HOFs are much more elegant, much more flexible solution to the same problems that OOP tries to address.
So if you're asking of another way to do OOP style stuff, HOFs are probably the closest alternative technology that has a similiar level of flexibility.
I think you are having trouble defining the "classical OO" approach. Is the signal method in Objective-C classical or the static method in standard C++?
In functional languages, it's easy enough to have non-object functions that, in a sense, act like objects because they return functions whose implementations are opaque. For example, the following code in Scheme
(define (create-ball color)
(lambda (attribute-name)
(if (equal? attribute-name "color")
color
"method-not-supported"))))
will output a function which isn't officially an "object" but it can act like one since it stores state, but you're not very clear about what exactly is wrong with the object-oriented paradigms you have been exposed to.
take a deep look at javascript which has the prototype based model or check out lua which has a some strange way to implement object orientation
Take a look at CLOS, which is basically function/method based.
Google's Go language takes a decidedly different approach to object orientation, maybe worth a look.
This caught my attention last night.
On the latest ALT.NET Podcast Scott Bellware discusses how as opposed to Ruby, languages like C#, Java et al. are not truly object oriented rather opting for the phrase "class-oriented". They talk about this distinction in very vague terms without going into much detail or discussing the pros and cons much.
What is the real difference here and how much does it matter? What are other languages then are "object-oriented"? It sounded pretty interesting but I don't want to have to learn Ruby just to know what if anything I am missing.
Update
After reading some of the answers below it seems like people generally agree that the reference is to duck-typing. What I'm not sure I understand still though is the claim that this ultimately changes all that much. Especially if you are already doing proper TDD with loose coupling etc. Can someone show me an example of a specific thing I could do with Ruby that I cannot do with C# and that exemplifies this different OOP approach?
In an object-oriented language, objects are defined by defining objects rather than classes, although classes can provide some useful templates for specific, cookie-cutter definitions of a given abstraction. In a class-oriented language, like C# for example, objects must be defined by classes, and these templates are usually canned and packaged and made immutable before runtime. This arbitrary constraint that objects must be defined before runtime and that the definitions of objects are immutable is not an object-oriented concept; it's class oriented.
The duck typing comments here are more attributing to the fact that Ruby and Python are more dynamic than C#. It doesn't really have anything to do with it's OO Nature.
What (I think) Bellware meant by that is that in Ruby, everything is an object. Even a class. A class definition is an instance of an object. As such, you can add/change/remove behavior to it at runtime.
Another good example is that NULL is an object as well. In ruby, everything is LITERALLY an object. Having such deep OO in it's entire being allows for some fun meta-programming techniques such as method_missing.
IMO, it's really overly defining "object-oriented", but what they are referring to is that Ruby, unlike C#, C++, Java, et al, does not make use of defining a class -- you really only ever work directly with objects. Conversely, in C# for example, you define classes that you then must instantiate into object by way of the new keyword. The key point being you must declare a class in C# or describe it. Additionally, in Ruby, everything -- even numbers, for example -- is an object. In contrast, C# still retains the concept of an object type and a value type. This in fact, I think illustrates the point they make about C# and other similar languages -- object type and value type imply a type system, meaning you have an entire system of describing types as opposed to just working with objects.
Conceptually, I think OO design is what provides the abstraction for use to deal complexity in software systems these days. The language is a tool use to implement an OO design -- some make it more natural than others. I would still argue that from a more common and broader definition, C# and the others are still object-oriented languages.
There are three pillars of OOP
Encapsulation
Inheritance
Polymorphism
If a language can do those three things it is a OOP language.
I am pretty sure the argument of language X does OOP better than language A will go on forever.
OO is sometimes defined as message oriented. The idea is that a method call (or property access) is really a message sent to another object. How the recieveing object handles the message is completely encapsulated. Often the message corresponds to a method which is then executed, but that is just an implementation detail. You can for example create a catch-all handler which is executed regardless of the method name in the message.
Static OO like in C# does not have this kind of encapsulation. A massage has to correspond to an existing method or property, otherwise the compiler will complain. Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python does however support "message-based" OO.
So in this sense C# and other statically typed OO languages are not true OO, sine thay lack "true" encapsulation.
Update: Its the new wave.. which suggest everything that we've been doing till now is passe.. Seems to be propping up quite a bit in podcasts and books.. Maybe this is what you heard.
Till now we've been concerned with static classes and not unleashed the power of object oriented development. We've been doing 'class based dev.' Classes are fixed/static templates to create objects. All objects of a class are created equal.
e.g. Just to illustrate what I've been babbling about... let me borrow a Ruby code snippet from PragProg screencast I just had the privilege of watching.
'Prototype based development' blurs the line between objects and classes.. there is no difference.
animal = Object.new # create a new instance of base Object
def animal.number_of_feet=(feet) # adding new methods to an Object instance. What?
#number_of_feet = feet
end
def animal.number_of_feet
#number_of_feet
end
cat = animal.clone #inherits 'number_of_feet' behavior from animal
cat.number_of_feet = 4
felix = cat.clone #inherits state of '4' and behavior from cat
puts felix.number_of_feet # outputs 4
The idea being its a more powerful way to inherit state and behavior than traditional class based inheritance. It gives you more flexibility and control in certain "special" scenarios (that I've yet to fathom). This allows things like Mix-ins (re using behavior without class inheritance)..
By challenging the basic primitives of how we think about problems, 'true OOP' is like 'the Matrix' in a way... You keep going WTF in a loop. Like this one.. where the base class of Container can be either an Array or a Hash based on which side of 0.5 the random number generated is.
class Container < (rand < 0.5 ? Array : Hash)
end
Ruby, javascript and the new brigade seem to be the ones pioneering this. I'm still out on this one... reading up and trying to make sense of this new phenomenon. Seems to be powerful.. too powerful.. Useful? I need my eyes opened a bit more. Interesting times.. these.
I've only listened to the first 6-7 minutes of the podcast that sparked your question. If their intent is to say that C# isn't a purely object-oriented language, that's actually correct. Everything in C# isn't an object (at least the primitives aren't, though boxing creates an object containing the same value). In Ruby, everything is an object. Daren and Ben seem to have covered all the bases in their discussion of "duck-typing", so I won't repeat it.
Whether or not this difference (everything an object versus everything not an object) is material/significant is a question I can't readily answer because I don't have sufficient depth in Ruby to compare it to C#. Those of you who on here who know Smalltalk (I don't, though I wish I did) have probably been looking at the Ruby movement with some amusement since it was the first pure OO language 30 years ago.
Maybe they are alluding to the difference between duck typing and class hierarchies?
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just pretend it's a duck and kick it.
In C#, Java etc. the compiler fusses a lot about: Are you allowed to do this operation on that object?
Object Oriented vs. Class Oriented could therefore mean: Does the language worry about objects or classes?
For instance: In Python, to implement an iterable object, you only need to supply a method __iter__() that returns an object that has a method named next(). That's all there is to it: No interface implementation (there is no such thing). No subclassing. Just talking like a duck / iterator.
EDIT: This post was upvoted while I rewrote everything. Sorry, won't ever do that again. The original content included advice to learn as many languages as possible and to nary worry about what the language doctors think / say about a language.
That was an abstract-podcast indeed!
But I see what they're getting at - they just dazzled by Ruby Sparkle. Ruby allows you to do things that C-based and Java programmers wouldn't even think of + combinations of those things let you achieve undreamt of possibilities.
Adding new methods to a built-in String class coz you feel like it, passing around unnamed blocks of code for others to execute, mixins... Conventional folks are not used to objects changing too far from the class template.
Its a whole new world out there for sure..
As for the C# guys not being OO enough... dont take it to heart.. Just take it as the stuff you speak when you are flabbergasted for words. Ruby does that to most people.
If I had to recommend one language for people to learn in the current decade.. it would be Ruby. I'm glad I did.. Although some people may claim Python. But its like my opinion.. man! :D
I don't think this is specifically about duck typing. For instance C# supports limited duck-typing already - an example would be that you can use foreach on any class that implements MoveNext and Current.
The concept of duck-typing is compatible with statically typed languages like Java and C#, it's basically an extension of reflection.
This is really the case of static vs dynamic typing. Both are proper-OO, in as much as there is such a thing. Outside of academia it's really not worth debating.
Rubbish code can be written in either. Great code can be written in either. There's absolutely nothing functional that one model can do that the other can't.
The real difference is in the nature of the coding done. Static types reduce freedom, but the advantage is that everyone knows what they're dealing with. The opportunity to change instances on the fly is very powerful, but the cost is that it becomes hard to know what you're deaing with.
For instance for Java or C# intellisense is easy - the IDE can quickly produce a drop list of possibilities. For Javascript or Ruby this becomes a lot harder.
For certain things, for instance producing an API that someone else will code with, there is a real advantage in static typing. For others, for instance rapidly producing prototypes, the advantage goes to dynamic.
It's worth having an understanding of both in your skills toolbox, but nowhere near as important as understanding the one you already use in real depth.
Object Oriented is a concept. This concept is based upon certain ideas. The technical names of these ideas (actually rather principles that evolved over the time and have not been there from the first hour) have already been given above, I'm not going to repeat them. I'm rather explaining this as simple and non-technical as I can.
The idea of OO programming is that there are objects. Objects are small independent entities. These entities may have embedded information or they may not. If they have such information, only the entity itself can access it or change it. The entities communicate with each other by sending messages between each other. Compare this to human beings. Human beings are independent entities, having internal data stored in their brain and the interact with each other by communicating (e.g. talking to each other). If you need knowledge from someone's else brain, you cannot directly access it, you must ask him a question and he may answer that to you, telling you what you wanted to know.
And that's basically it. This is real idea behind OO programming. Writing these entities, define the communication between them and have them interact together to form an application. This concept is not bound to any language. It's just a concept and if you write your code in C#, Java, or Ruby, that is not important. With some extra work this concept can even be done in pure C, even though it is a functional language but it offers everything you need for the concept.
Different languages have now adopted this concept of OO programming and of course the concepts are not always equal. Some languages allow what other languages forbid, for example. Now one of the concepts that involved is the concept of classes. Some languages have classes, some don't. A class is a blueprint how an object looks like. It defines the internal data storage of an object, it defines the messages an object can understand and if there is inheritance (which is not mandatory for OO programming!), classes also defines from which other class (or classes if multiple inheritance is allowed) this class inherits (and which properties if selective inheritance exists). Once you created such a blueprint you can now generate an unlimited amount of objects build according to this blueprint.
There are OO languages that have no classes, though. How are objects then build? Well, usually dynamically. E.g. you can create a new blank object and then dynamically add internal structure like instance variables or methods (messages) to it. Or you can duplicate an already existing object, with all its properties and then modify it. Or possibly merge two objects into a new one. Unlike class based languages these languages are very dynamic, as you can generate objects dynamically during runtime in ways not even you the developer has thought about when starting writing the code.
Usually this dynamic has a price: The more dynamic a language is the more memory (RAM) objects will waste and the slower everything gets as program flow is extremely dynamically as well and it's hard for a compiler to generate effective code if it has no chance to predict code or data flow. JIT compilers can optimize some parts of that during runtime, once they know the program flow, however as these languages are so dynamically, program flow can change at any time, forcing the JIT to throw away all compilation results and re-compile the same code over and over again.
But this is a tiny implementation detail - it has nothing to do with the basic OO principle. It is nowhere said that objects need to be dynamic or must be alterable during runtime. The Wikipedia says it pretty well:
Programming techniques may include
features such as information hiding,
data abstraction, encapsulation,
modularity, polymorphism, and
inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
They may or they may not. This is all not mandatory. Mandatory is only the presence of objects and that they must have ways to interact with each other (otherwise objects would be pretty useless if they cannot interact with each other).
You asked: "Can someone show me an example of a wonderous thing I could do with ruby that I cannot do with c# and that exemplifies this different oop approach?"
One good example is active record, the ORM built into rails. The model classes are dynamically built at runtime, based on the database schema.
This is really probably getting down to what these people see others doing in c# and java as opposed to c# and java supporting OOP. Most languages cane be used in different programming paradigms. For example, you can write procedural code in c# and scheme, and you can do functional-style programming in java. It is more about what you are trying to do and what the language supports.
I'll take a stab at this.
Python and Ruby are duck-typed. To generate any maintainable code in these languages, you pretty much have to use test driven development. As such, it is very important for a developer to easily inject dependencies into their code without having to create a giant supporting framework.
Successful dependency-injection depends upon on having a pretty good object model. The two are sort of two sides of the same coin. If you really understand how to use OOP, then you should by default create designs where dependencies can be easily injected.
Because dependency injection is easier in dynamically typed languages, the Ruby/Python developers feel like their language understands the lessons of OO much better than other statically typed counterparts.