Related
One thing I like very much is reading about different programming languages. Currently, I'm learning Scala but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in Groovy, Clojure, Python, and many others. All these languages have a unique look and feel and some characteristic features. In the case of Clojure I don't understand one of these design decisions. As far as I know, Clojure puts great emphasis on its functional paradigm and pretty much forces you to use immutable "variables" wherever possible. So if half of your values are immutable, why is the language dynamically typed?
The Clojure website says:
First and foremost, Clojure is dynamic. That means that a Clojure program is not just something you compile and run, but something with which you can interact.
Well, that sounds completely strange. If a program is compiled you can't change it anymore. Sure you can "interact" with it, that's what UIs are used for but the website certainly doesn't mean a neat "dynamic" GUI.
How does Clojure benefit from dynamical typing
I mean the special case of Clojure and not general advantages of dynamic typing.
How does the dynamic type system help improve functional programming
Again, I know the pleasure of not spilling "int a;" all over the source code but type inference can ease a lot of the pain. Therefore I would just like to know how dynamic typing supports the concepts of a functional language.
If a program is compiled you can't change it anymore.
This is wrong. In image-based systems, like Lisp (Clojure can be seen as a Lisp dialect) and Smalltalk, you can change the compiled environment. Development in such a language typically means working on a running system, adding and changing function definitions, macro definitions, parameters etc. (adding means compiling and loading into the image).
This has a lot of benefits. For one, all the tools can interact directly with the program and do not need to guess at the system's behaviour. You also do not have any long compilation pauses, because each compiled unit is very small (it is very rare to recompile everything). The NASA JPL once corrected a running Lisp system on a probe hundreds of thousands of kilometres away in space.
For such a system, it is very natural to have type information available at runtime (that is what dynamic typing means). Of course, nothing hinders you from also doing type inference and type checks at compilation time. These concepts are orthogonal. Modern Lisp implementations typically can do both.
Well first of all Clojure is a Lisp and Lisps traditionally have always been dynamically typed.
Second as the excerpt you quoted said Clojure is a dynamic language. This means, among other things, that you can define new functions at runtime, evaluate arbitrary code at runtime and so on. All of these things are hard or impossible to do in statically typed languages (without plastering casts all over the place).
Another reason is that macros might complicate debugging type errors immensely. I imagine that generating meaningful error messages for type errors produced by macro-generated code would be quite a task for the compiler.
I agree, a purely functional language can still have an interactive read-eval-print-loop, and would have an easier time with type inference. I assume Clojure wanted to attract lisp programmers by being "lisp for the jvm", and chose to be dynamic like other lisps. Another factor is that type systems need to be designed as the very first step of the language, and it's faster for language implementors to just skip that step.
(I'm rephrasing the original answer since it generated too much misunderstanding)
One of the reasons to keep Clojure (and any Lisp) dynamically typed is to simplify creation of macros. In short, macros deal with abstract syntax trees (ASTs) which can contain nodes of many, many different types (usually, any objects at all). In theory, it's possible to make full statically typed macro system, but in practice such systems are usually limited and sparsely spread. Please, see examples below and extended discussion in the thread.
EDIT 2020: Wow, 9 years passed from the time I posted this answer, and people still add comments. What a legacy we all have left!
Some people noted in comments that having a statically typed language doesn't prevent you from expressing code as data structure. And, strictly speaking, it's true - union types allow to express data structures of any complexity, including syntax of a language. However I claim that to express the syntax, you must either reduce expressiveness, or use such wide unions that you lose all advantages of static typing. To prove this claim I will use another language - Julia.
Julia is optionally typed - you can constrain any function or struct field to have a particular type, and Julia will check it. The language supports AST as a first class citizen using Expr and Symbol types. Expression definition looks something like this:
struct Expr
head::Symbol
args::Vector{Any}
end
Expression consists of a head which is always a symbol and list of arguments which may have any types. Julia also supports special Union which can constrain argument to specific types, e.g. Symbols and other Exprs:
struct Expr
head::Symbol
args::Vector{Union{Symbol, Expr}}
end
Which is sufficient to express e.g. :(x + y):
dump(:(x + y))
Expr
head: Symbol call
args: Array{Any}((3,))
1: Symbol +
2: Symbol x
3: Symbol y
But Julia also supports a number of other types in expressions. One obvious and helpful example is literals:
:(x + 1)
Moreover, you can use interpolation or construct expressions manually to put any object to AST:
obj = create_some_object()
ex1 = :(x + $objs)
ex2 = Expr(:+, :x, obj)
These examples are not just a funny experiments, they are actively used in real code, especially in macros. So you cannot constrain expression arguments to a specific union of types - expressions may contain any values.
Of course, when designing a new language you can put any restrictions on it. Perhaps, restricting Expr to contain only Symbol, Expr and some Literals would be useful in some contexts. But it goes against principles of simplicity and flexibility in both - Julia and Clojure, and would significantly reduce usefulness of macros.
Because that's what the world/market needed. No sense in building what's already built.
I hear the JVM already has a statically typed language ;)
I recently had a debate with a colleague who is not a fan of OOP. What took my attention was what he said:
"What's the point of doing my coding in objects? If it's reuse then I can just create a library and call whatever functions I need for whatever task is at hand. Do I need these concepts of polymorphism, inheritance, interfaces, patterns or whatever?"
We are in a small company developing small projects for e-commerce sites and real estate.
How can I take advantage of OOP in an "everyday, real-world" setup? Or was OOP really meant to solve complex problems and not intended for "everyday" development?
My personally view: context
When you program in OOP you have a greater awareness of the context. It helps you to organize the code in such a way that it is easier to understand because the real world is also object oriented.
The good things about OOP come from tying a set of data to a set of behaviors.
So, if you need to do many related operations on a related set of data, you can write many functions that operate on a struct, or you can use an object.
Objects give you some code reuse help in the form of inheritance.
IME, it is easier to work with an object with a known set of attributes and methods that it is to keep a set of complex structs and the functions that operate on them.
Some people will go on about inheritance and polymorphism. These are valuable, but the real value in OOP (in my opinion) comes from the nice way it encapsulates and associates data with behaviors.
Should you use OOP on your projects? That depends on how well your language supports OOP. That depends on the types of problems you need to solve.
But, if you are doing small websites, you are still talking about enough complexity that I would use OOP design given proper support in the development language.
More than getting something to just work - your friend's point, a well designed OO design is easier to understand, to follow, to expand, to extend and to implement. It is so much easier for example to delegate work that categorically are similar or to hold data that should stay together (yes even a C struct is an object).
Well, I'm sure a lot of people will give a lot more academically correctly answers, but here's my take on a few of the most valuable advantages:
OOP allows for better encapsulation
OOP allows the programmer to think in more logical terms, making software projects easier to design and understand (if well designed)
OOP is a time saver. For example, look at the things you can do with a C++ string object, vectors, etc. All that functionality (and much more) comes for "free." Now, those are really features of the class libraries and not OOP itself, but almost all OOP implementations come with nice class libraries. Can you implement all that stuff in C (or most of it)? Sure. But why write it yourself?
Look at the use of Design Patterns and you'll see the utility of OOP. It's not just about encapsulation and reuse, but extensibility and maintainability. It's the interfaces that make things powerful.
A few examples:
Implementing a stream (decorator pattern) without objects is difficult
Adding a new operation to an existing system such as a new encryption type (strategy pattern) can be difficult without objects.
Look at the way PostgresQL is
implemented versus the way your
database book says a database should
be implemented and you'll see a big
difference. The book will suggest
node objects for each operator.
Postgres uses myriad tables and
macros to try to emulate these nodes.
It is much less pretty and much
harder to extend because of that.
The list goes on.
The power of most programming languages is in the abstractions that they make available. Object Oriented programming provides a very powerful system of abstractions in the way it allows you to manage relationships between related ideas or actions.
Consider the task of calculating areas for an arbitrary and expanding collection of shapes. Any programmer can quickly write functions for the area of a circle, square, triangle, ect. and store them in a library. The difficulty comes when trying to write a program that identifies and calculates the area of an arbitrary shape. Each time you add a new kind of shape, say a pentagon, you would need to update and extend something like an IF or CASE structure to allow your program to identify the new shape and call the correct area routine from your "library of functions". After a while, the maintenance costs associated with this approach begin to pile up.
With object-oriented programming, a lot of this comes free-- just define a Shape class that contains an area method. Then it doesn't really matter what specific shape you're dealing with at run time, just make each geometrical figure an object that inherits from Shape and call the area method. The Object Oriented paradigm handles the details of whether at this moment in time, with this user input, do we need to calculate the area of a circle, triangle, square, pentagon or the ellipse option that was just added half a minute ago.
What if you decided to change the interface behind the way the area function was called? With Object Oriented programming you would just update the Shape class and the changes automagically propagate to all entities that inherit from that class. With a non Object Oriented system you would be facing the task of slogging through your "library of functions" and updating each individual interface.
In summary, Object Oriented programming provides a powerful form of abstraction that can save you time and effort by eliminating repetition in your code and streamlining extensions and maintenance.
Around 1994 I was trying to make sense of OOP and C++ at the same time, and found myself frustrated, even though I could understand in principle what the value of OOP was. I was so used to being able to mess with the state of any part of the application from other languages (mostly Basic, Assembly, and Pascal-family languages) that it seemed like I was giving up productivity in favor of some academic abstraction. Unfortunately, my first few encounters with OO frameworks like MFC made it easier to hack, but didn't necessarily provide much in the way of enlightenment.
It was only through a combination of persistence, exposure to alternate (non-C++) ways of dealing with objects, and careful analysis of OO code that both 1) worked and 2) read more coherently and intuitively than the equivalent procedural code that I started to really get it. And 15 years later, I'm regularly surprised at new (to me) discoveries of clever, yet impressively simple OO solutions that I can't imagine doing as neatly in a procedural approach.
I've been going through the same set of struggles trying to make sense of the functional programming paradigm over the last couple of years. To paraphrase Paul Graham, when you're looking down the power continuum, you see everything that's missing. When you're looking up the power continuum, you don't see the power, you just see weirdness.
I think, in order to commit to doing something a different way, you have to 1) see someone obviously being more productive with more powerful constructs and 2) suspend disbelief when you find yourself hitting a wall. It probably helps to have a mentor who is at least a tiny bit further along in their understanding of the new paradigm, too.
Barring the gumption required to suspend disbelief, if you want someone to quickly grok the value of an OO model, I think you could do a lot worse than to ask someone to spend a week with the Pragmatic Programmers book on Rails. It unfortunately does leave out a lot of the details of how the magic works, but it's a pretty good introduction to the power of a system of OO abstractions. If, after working through that book, your colleague still doesn't see the value of OO for some reason, he/she may be a hopeless case. But if they're willing to spend a little time working with an approach that has a strongly opinionated OO design that works, and gets them from 0-60 far faster than doing the same thing in a procedural language, there may just be hope. I think that's true even if your work doesn't involve web development.
I'm not so sure that bringing up the "real world" would be as much a selling point as a working framework for writing good apps, because it turns out that, especially in statically typed languages like C# and Java, modeling the real world often requires tortuous abstractions. You can see a concrete example of the difficulty of modeling the real world by looking at thousands of people struggling to model something as ostensibly simple as the geometric abstraction of "shape" (shape, ellipse, circle).
All programming paradigms have the same goal: hiding unneeded complexity.
Some problems are easily solved with an imperative paradigm, like your friend uses. Other problems are easily solved with an object-oriented paradigm. There are many other paradigms. The main ones (logic programming, functional programming, and imperative programming) are all equivalent to each other; object-oriented programming is usually thought as an extension to imperative programming.
Object-oriented programming is best used when the programmer is modeling items that are similar, but not the same. An imperative paradigm would put the different kinds of models into one function. An object-oriented paradigm separates the different kinds of models into different methods on related objects.
Your colleague seems to be stuck in one paradigm. Good luck.
To me, the power of OOP doesn't show itself until you start talking about inheritance and polymorphism.
If one's argument for OOP rests the concept of encapsulation and abstraction, well that isn't a very convincing argument for me. I can write a huge library and only document the interfaces to it that I want the user to be aware of, or I can rely on language-level constructs like packages in Ada to make fields private and only expose what it is that I want to expose.
However, the real advantage comes when I've written code in a generic hierarchy so that it can be reused later such that the same exact code interfaces are used for different functionality to achieve the same result.
Why is this handy? Because I can stand on the shoulders of giants to accomplish my current task. The idea is that I can boil the parts of a problem down to the most basic parts, the objects that compose the objects that compose... the objects that compose the project. By using a class that defines behavior very well in the general case, I can use that same proven code to build a more specific version of the same thing, and then a more specific version of the same thing, and then yet an even more specific version of the same thing. The key is that each of these entities has commonality that has already been coded and tested, and there is no need to reimpliment it again later. If I don't use inheritance for this, I end up reimplementing the common functionality or explicitly linking my new code against the old code, which provides a scenario for me to introduce control flow bugs.
Polymorphism is very handy in instances where I need to achieve a certain functionality from an object, but the same functionality is also needed from similar, but unique types. For instance, in Qt, there is the idea of inserting items onto a model so that the data can be displayed and you can easily maintain metadata for that object. Without polymorphism, I would need to bother myself with much more detail than I currently do (I.E. i would need to implement the same code interfaces that conduct the same business logic as the item that was originally intended to go on the model). Because the base class of my data-bound object interacts natively with the model, I can instead insert metadata onto this model with no trouble. I get what I need out of the object with no concern over what the model needs, and the model gets what it needs with no concern over what I have added to the class.
Ask your friend to visualize any object in his very Room, House or City... and if he can tell a single such object which a system in itself and is capable of doing some meaningful work. Things like a button isnt doing something alone - it takes lots of objects to make a phone call. Similarly a car engine is made of the crank shaft, pistons, spark plugs. OOPS concepts have evolved from our perception in natural processes or things in our lives. The "Inside COM" book tells the purpose of COM by taking analogy from a childhood game of identifying animals by asking questions.
Design trumps technology and methodology. Good designs tend to incorporate universal principals of complexity management such as law of demeter which is at the heart of what OO language features strive to codify.
Good design is not dependant on use of OO specific language features although it is typically in ones best interests to use them.
Not only does it make
programming easier / more maintainable in the current situation for other people (and yourself)
It is already allowing easier database CRUD (Create, Update, Delete) operations.
You can find more info about it looking up:
- Java : Hibernate
- Dot Net : Entity Framework
See even how LINQ (Visual Studio) can make your programming life MUCH easier.
Also, you can start using design patterns for solving real life problems (design patterns are all about OO)
Perhaps it is even fun to demonstrate with a little demo:
Let's say you need to store employees, accounts, members, books in a text file in a similar way.
.PS. I tried writing it in a PSEUDO way :)
the OO way
Code you call:
io.file.save(objectsCollection.ourFunctionForSaving())
class objectsCollection
function ourFunctionForSaving() As String
String _Objects
for each _Object in objectsCollection
Objects &= _Object & "-"
end for
return _Objects
end method
NON-OO Way
I don't think i'll write down non-oo code. But think of it :)
NOW LET'S SAY
In the OO way. The above class is the parent class of all methods for saving the books, employees, members, accounts, ...
What happens if we want to change the way of saving to a textfile? For example, to make it compactible with a current standard (.CVS).
And let's say we would like to add a load function, how much code do you need to write?
In the OO- way you only need the add a New Sub method which can split all the data into parameters (This happens once).
Let your collegue think about that :)
In domains where state and behavior are poorly aligned, Object-Orientation reduces the overall dependency density (i.e. complexity) within these domains, which makes the resulting systems less brittle.
This is because the essence of Object-Orientation is based on the fact that, organizationally, it doesn't dustinguish between state and behavior at all, treating both uniformly as "features". Objects are just sets of features clumpled to minimize overall dependency.
In other domains, Object-Orientation is not the best approach. There are different language paradigms for different problems. Experienced developers know this, and are willing to use whatever language is closest to the domain.
[Edit:] Earlier I asked this as a perhaps poorly-framed question about when to use OOP versus when to use procedural programming - some responses implied I was asking for help understanding OOP. On the contrary, I have used OOP a lot but want to know when to use a procedural approach. Judging by the responses, I take it that there is a fairly strong consensus that OOP is usually a better all-round approach but that a procedural language should be used if the OOP architecture will not provide any reuse benefits in the long term.
However my experience as a Java programmer has been otherwise. I saw a massive Java program that I architected rewritten by a Perl guru in 1/10 of the code that I had written and seemingly just as robust as my model of OOP perfection. My architecture saw a significant amount of reuse and yet a more concise procedural approach had produced a superior solution.
So, at the risk of repeating myself, I'm wondering in what situations should I choose a procedural over an object-oriented approach. How would you identify in advance a situation in which an OOP architecture is likely to be overkill and a procedural approach more concise and efficient.
Can anyone suggest examples of what those scenarios would look like?
What is a good way to identify in advance a project that would be better served by a procedural programming approach?
I like Glass' rules of 3 when it comes to Reuse (which seems to be what you're interested in).
1) It is 3 times as difficult to
build reusable components as single
use components 2) A reusable
component should be tried out in three
different applications before it will
be sufficiently general to accept into
a reuse library
From this I think you can extrapolate these corollaries
a) If you don't have the budget
for 3 times the time it would take you
to build a single use component, maybe
you should hold off on reuse. (Assuming Difficulty = Time)
b) If
you don't have 3 places where you'd
use the component you're building,
maybe you should hold off on building
the reusable component.
I still think OOP is useful for building the single use component, because you can always refactor it into something that is really reusable later on. (You can also refactor from PP to OOP but I think OOP comes with enough benefits regarding organization and encapsulation to start there)
Reusability (or lack of it) is not bound to any specific programming paradigm. Use object oriented, procedural, functional or any other programming as needed. Organization and reusability come from what you do, not from the tool.
Those who religiously support OOP don't have any facts to justify their support, as we see here in these comments as well. They are trained (or brain washed) in universities to use and praise OOP and OOP only and that is why they support it so blindly. Have they done any real work in PP at all? Other then protecting code from careless programmers in a team environment, OOP doesn't offer much. Personally working both in PP and OOP for years, I find that PP is simple, straight forward and more efficient, and I agree with the following wise men and women:
(Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming):
A number of well-known researchers and programmers have criticized OOP. Here is an incomplete list:
Luca Cardelli wrote a paper titled “Bad Engineering Properties of Object-Oriented Languages”.
Richard Stallman wrote in 1995, “Adding OOP to Emacs is not clearly an improvement; I used OOP when working on the Lisp Machine window systems, and I disagree with the usual view that it is a superior way to program.”
A study by Potok et al. has shown no significant difference in productivity between OOP and procedural approaches.
Christopher J. Date stated that critical comparison of OOP to other technologies, relational in particular, is difficult because of lack of an agreed-upon and rigorous definition of OOP. A theoretical foundation on OOP is proposed which uses OOP as a kind of customizable type system to support RDBMS.
Alexander Stepanov suggested that OOP provides a mathematically-limited viewpoint and called it “almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence” (possibly referring to the Artificial Intelligence projects and marketing of the 1980s that are sometimes viewed as overzealous in retrospect).
Paul Graham has suggested that the purpose of OOP is to act as a “herding mechanism” which keeps mediocre programmers in mediocre organizations from “doing too much damage”. This is at the expense of slowing down productive programmers who know how to use more powerful and more compact techniques.
Joe Armstrong, the principal inventor of Erlang, is quoted as saying “The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.”
Richard Mansfield, author and former editor of COMPUTE! magazine, states that “like countless other intellectual fads over the years (“relevance”, communism, “modernism”, and so on—history is littered with them), OOP will be with us until eventually reality asserts itself. But considering how OOP currently pervades both universities and workplaces, OOP may well prove to be a durable delusion. Entire generations of indoctrinated programmers continue to march out of the academy, committed to OOP and nothing but OOP for the rest of their lives.” and also is quoted as saying “OOP is to writing a program, what going through airport security is to flying”.
You gave the answer yourself - big projects simply need OOP to prevent getting too messy.
From my point of view, the biggest advantage of OOP is code organization. This includes the principles of DRY and encapsulation.
I would suggest using the most concise, standards-based approach that you can find for any given problem. Your colleague who used Perl demonstrated that a good developer who knows a particular tool well can achieve great results regardless of the methodology. Rather than compare your Java-versus-Perl projects as a good example of the procedural-versus-OOP debate, I would like to see a face-off between Perl and a similarly concise language such as Ruby, which happens to also have the benefits of object orientation. Now that's something I'd like to see. My guess is Ruby would come out on top but I'm not interested in provoking a language flame-war here - my point is only that you choose the appropriate tool for the job - whatever approach can accomplish the task in the most efficient and robust way possible. Java may be robust because of its object orientation but as you and your colleague and many others who are converting to dynamic languages such as Ruby and Python are finding these days, there are much more efficient solutions out there, whether procedural or OOP.
I think DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself) combined with a little Agile is a good approach. Build your program incrementally starting with the simplest thing that works then add features one by one and re-factor your code as necessary as you go along.
If you find yourself writing the same few lines of code again and again - maybe with different data - it's time to think about abstractions that can help separate the stuff that changes from the stuff that stays the same.
Create thorough unit tests for each iteration so that you can re-factor with confidence.
It's a mistake to spend too much time trying to anticipate which parts of your code need to be reusable. It will soon become apparent once the system starts to grow in size.
For larger projects with multiple concurrent development teams you need to have some kind of architectural plan to guide the development, but if you are working on your own or in small cooperative team then the architecture will emerge naturally if you stick to the DRY principle.
Another advantage of this approach is that whatever you do is based on real world experience. My favourite analogy - you have to play with the bricks before you can imagine how the building might be constructed.
I think you should use procedural style when you have a very well specified problem, the specification won't change and you want a very fast running program for it. In this case you may trade the maintainability for performance.
Usually this is the case when you write a game engine or a scientific simulation program. If your program calculate something more than million times per second it should be optimized to the edge.
You can use very efficient algorithms but it won't be fast enough until you optimize the cache usage. It can be a big performance boost your data is cached. This means the CPU don't need fetch bytes from the RAM, it know them. To achieve this you should try to store your data close to each other, your executable and data size should be minimal, and try using as less pointers as you can (use static global fixed sized arrays where you can afford).
If you use pointers you are continuously jumping in the memory and your CPU need to reload the cache every time. OOP code is full of pointers: every object is stored by its memory address. You call new everywhere which spread your objects all over the memory making the cache optimization almost impossible (unless you have an allocator or a garbage collector that keeps things close to each other). You call callbacks and virtual functions. The compiler usually can't inline the virtual functions and a virtual function call is relatively slow (jump to the VMT, get the address of the virtual function, call it [this involves pushing the parameters and local variables on the stack, executing the function then popping everything]). This matters a lot when you have a loop running from 0 to 1000000 25 times in every second. By using procedural style there aren't virtual function and the optimizar can inline everything in those hot loops.
If the project is so small that it would be contained within one class and is not going to be used for very long, I would consider using functions. Alternatively if the language you are using does not support OO (e.g. c).
"The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.” —Joe Armstrong
Do you want the jungle?
I think the suitability of OOP depends more on the subject area you're working in than the size of the project. There are some subject areas (CAD, simulation modeling, etc.) where OOP maps naturally to the concepts involved. However, there are a lot of other domains where the mapping ends up being clumsy and incongruous. Many people using OOP for everything seem to spend a lot of time trying to pound square pegs into round holes.
OOP has it's place, but so do procedural programming, functional programming, etc. Look at the problem you're trying to solve, then choose a programming paradigm that allows you to write the simplest possible program to solve it.
Procedural programs can be simpler for a certain type of program. Typically, these are the short script-like programs.
Consider this scenario:
Your code is not OO. You have data structures and many functions throughout your progam that operate on the data structures. Each function takes a data structure as a parameter and does different things depending on a "data_type" field in the data structure.
IF all is working and not going to be changed, who cares if it's OO or not? It's working. It's done. If you can get to that point faster writing procedurally, then maybe that's the way to go.
But are you sure it's not going to be changed? Let's say you're likely to add new types of data structures. Each time you add a new data structure type that you want those functions to operate on, you have to make sure you find and modify every one of those functions to add a new "else if" case to check for and add the behavior you want to affect the new type of data structure. The pain of this increases as the program gets larger and more complicated. The more likely this is, the better off you would be going with the OO approach.
And - are you sure that it's working with no bugs? More involved switching logic creates more complexity in testing each unit of code. With polymorphic method calls, the language handles the switching logic for you and each method can be simpler and more straightforward to test.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, it is very likely that you will use PP in conjunction with OOP, I can't see how to segregate them.
I believe Grady Booch said once that you really start to benefit a lot from OOP at 10000+ lines of code.
However, I'd always go the OO-way. Even for 200 lines. It's a superior approach in a long term, and the overhead is just an overrated excuse. All the big things start small.
One of the goals of OOP was to make reusability easier however it is not the only purpose. The key to learning to use objects effectively is Design Patterns.
We are all used to the idea of algorithms which tell us how to combine different procedures and data structures to perform common tasks. Conversely look at Design Patterns by the Gang of Four for ideas on how to combine objects to perform common tasks.
Before I learned about Design Patterns I was pretty much in the dark about how to use objects effectively other than as a super type structure.
Remember that implementing Interfaces is just as important if not more important than inheritance. Back in the day C++ was leading example of object oriented programming and using interfaces are obscured compared to inheritance (virtual functions, etc). The C++ Legacy meant a lot more emphasis was placed on reusing behavior in the various tutorials and broad overviews. Since then Java, C#, and other languages have moved interface up to more a focus.
What interfaces are great for is precisely defining how two object interact with each. It is not about reusing behavior. As it turns out much of our software is about how the different parts interact. So using interface gives a lot more productivity gain than trying to make reusable components.
Remember that like many other programming ideas Objects are a tool. You will have to use your best judgment as to how well they work for your project. For my CAD/CAM software for metal cutting machines there are important math functions that are not placed in objects because there is no reason for them be in objects. Instead they are exposed from library and used by the object that need them. Then there is are some math function that were made object oriented as their structure naturally lead to this setup. (Taking a list of points and transforming it in on of several different types of cutting paths). Again use your best judgment.
Part of your answer depends on what language you're using. I know that in Python, it's pretty simple to move procedural code into a class, or a more formal object.
One of my heuristics is a based on how the "state" of the situation is. If the procedure pollutes the namespace, or could possibly affect the global state (in a bad, or unpredictable way), then encapsulating that function in an object or class is probably wise.
My two cents...
Advantages of procedural programming
Simple designing (fast proof of concept, battle with dramatically
dynamic requirements)
Simple inter-project communications
Natural when temporal order matters
Less overhead at runtime
The more Procedural code become good the closer it's to Functional. And advantages of FP are well known.
I always begin designing in a top-down fashion and in the top parts it's much easier to think in OOP terms. But when comes the time to code some little specific parts you are much more productive with just procedure programming.
OOP is cool in designing and in shaping the project, so that the divide-et-impera paradigm can be applied. But you cannot apply it in every aspect of your code, as it were a religion :)
If you "think OO" when you're programming, then I'm not sure it makes sense to ask "when should I revert to procedural programming?" This is equivalent to asking java programmers what they can't do as well because java requires classes. (Ditto .NET languages).
If you have to make an effort to get past thinking procedurally, then I'd advise asking about how you can overcome that (if you care to); otherwise stay with procedural. If it's that much effort to get into OOP-mode, your OOP code probably won't work very well anyway (until you get further along the learning curve.)
IMHO, the long term benefits of OOP outweigh the time saved in the short term.
Like AZ said, using OOP in a procedural fashion (which I do quite a bit), is a good way to go (for smaller projects). The bigger the project, the more OOP you should employ.
You can write bad software in both concepts. Still, complex software are much easier to write, understand and maintain in OO languages than in procedural. I wrote highly complex ERP applications in procedural language (Oracle PL/SQL) and then switched to OOP (C#). It was and still is a breath of fresh air.
To this point, the arguments of using OO for DRY and encapsulation is just adding unnecessary complexity in terms of how implicit it is and just sheer of how many layers that a class can inherit a lot of properties and methods into it.
not to mention that it's really hard to design a good OO cause you'd end up adding unrelated/unnecessary things that are going to be inherited throughout the whole layers of classes that inherits them. which is really bad if one parent class gets messy, the whole codebase is messy. and gets refactored.
also the fact that those inherited properties are not specifically fit into the use case to the class that inherits it which requires to be overridden. and to the ones that don't need them at all just have them for no good reason.
for something that does not need to be shared, sure there's abstract properties. but you'd end up having to implement them in all the instances that tries to inherits them.
this inheritance is just too magicky and gets dangerous.
but I'd give OO credit on how it's good at enforcing of what should be available. but then again it's too much power that is really easy to be wrongly used.
In my opinion, final class should be the default. and you need to deliberately choose if you want to allow it to inheritance.
Most studies have found that OO code is more concise than procedural code. If you look at projects that re-wrote existing C code in C++ (not something I necessarily advise, BTW) , you normally see reductions in code size of between 50 and 75 percent.
So the answer is - always use OO!
After switching back and forth between several scripting languages this week, I found myself thinking how similar they all are. Yet I'm always reaching for Google (or nowadays SO) to remember details like what the local equivalents of "instanceof" and "endswith" are, or the right syntax to declare an interface, or whatever.
This reminded me of the (human) language Europonto. Just pick some vaguely English syntax and some vaguely Romance/Germanic/Slavic vocabulary, and it's all good!
So what would happen if we tried to do the same thing with a scripting language. In the mood for Python-style indented blocks today? Fine! Want to use a prototype object? Ok! Can only remember how to spell the PHP names of some library function? No problem!
Anyway, that's the wild and crazy idea. Since we need a question that admits concrete answers, let's tighten it up like this:
What would be the most significant conflicts in creating a scripting language that permitted all the native syntax and library functions of [Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl, shell, and JavaScript], such that you could freely intermix code blocks and function names between languages?
And let's say that any particular construction should be consistent at the statement level. So we'll allow:
foreach( $foo as $bar )
{
if $foo == 2:
print "hi"
}
but not, say,
foreach( $foo as $bar )
{
if $foo == 2:
print "hi"
endif
end
Conflicts can include: parser ambiguities; name collision; conflicting semantics for objects or functions or closures; etc. I'm guessing that scope will be a ginormous issue, but you tell me.
I'll start this as "community wiki" from the get go, so if you think it's a fun question but want to make it more rigorous, feel free to edit.
I would suggest that the main problem is recognising what the syntax of each statement is supposed to be.
In any case, what is the point? Almost all scripting languages have facilities to do much the same things, which is why people tend to master one that they use consistently, and stick with it.
The main difficulty would to be to allow people maintain it. With a well defined language you can only print a certain way and do sys.argv a certain way. once you allow multiple syntaxes there is no sane way to search for all the sys.argv in the code base you have.
At the syntactical level the only problem I can see would be to detect which block has which syntax, then separate them and parse them with specific parsers. Of course given very small statements there could be ambiguities as to which language it is and you could argue that it doesn't matter, but it just may be the case, that in different languages the same string of characters does different things so this could be a subtle issue.
At the API level you would have lots of different methods of doing the same thing but in a subtly different way or subset of doing it. So for example you could have no way of doing Java's string.startsWith() in let's say PHP, so you would do something different, or no way of doing PHP's strstr() (which returns a part of the string from the found needle to the end) and you would implement something different for that or even think differently about the problem. Then you would have to have all those different API methods of doing the same things and that would be huge API to implement, support and (god forbid) learn.
At the wetware level the code written by others would be totally unreadable unless you know a ton of languages and their subtle differences. I think it is difficult enough to learn a single programming language to the smallest details and so it is not practical at all to have this kind of frankensteinish beast created. I can think of an exception for use as an algorithm description language which it already is used in universities all over the world, where teacher takes some language of his liking and makes the code as readable as it can be for a human without needing to implement a parser for it.
As a side note I think this kind of system could be implemented at the least effort by somehow utilizing .NET's CLR where you have a ton of different languages each compiling to the same bytecode and accessing the same variables and stuff. All you'd need to do is split the code to clusters of different languages, then compile them separately on their respective compilers and then just merge the bytecode and somehow make sure they all point to the same variables and functions when mentioning the same names across the different languages.
I have begun to see that syntax is but one property of a language. And most of them look like C to me. The purpose of a language (object oriented, strong typing, etc) is something else again. It starts to look like syntax is not the most important aspect.
I went and read the wikipedia entry...
Europanto is a linguistic jest presented as a "constructed language" with a hodge-podge vocabulary
"Hodge-podge" sounds like the way Perl has been described to me!
I found a rather detailed discussion of closures in Ruby. It sounds like getting Ruby's behavior to coexist with JavaScript's or Python's would require some kind of ugly disambiguation.
If anybody were to add Perl to the list of languages to be covered, I think its lexical scoping rules would present a related problem?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the differences between these programming paradigms, and are they better suited to particular problems or do any use-cases favour one over the others?
Architecture examples appreciated!
All of them are good in their own ways - They're simply different approaches to the same problems.
In a purely procedural style, data tends to be highly decoupled from the functions that operate on it.
In an object oriented style, data tends to carry with it a collection of functions.
In a functional style, data and functions tend toward having more in common with each other (as in Lisp and Scheme) while offering more flexibility in terms of how functions are actually used. Algorithms tend also to be defined in terms of recursion and composition rather than loops and iteration.
Of course, the language itself only influences which style is preferred. Even in a pure-functional language like Haskell, you can write in a procedural style (though that is highly discouraged), and even in a procedural language like C, you can program in an object-oriented style (such as in the GTK+ and EFL APIs).
To be clear, the "advantage" of each paradigm is simply in the modeling of your algorithms and data structures. If, for example, your algorithm involves lists and trees, a functional algorithm may be the most sensible. Or, if, for example, your data is highly structured, it may make more sense to compose it as objects if that is the native paradigm of your language - or, it could just as easily be written as a functional abstraction of monads, which is the native paradigm of languages like Haskell or ML.
The choice of which you use is simply what makes more sense for your project and the abstractions your language supports.
I think the available libraries, tools, examples, and communities completely trumps the paradigm these days. For example, ML (or whatever) might be the ultimate all-purpose programming language but if you can't get any good libraries for what you are doing you're screwed.
For example, if you're making a video game, there are more good code examples and SDKs in C++, so you're probably better off with that. For a small web application, there are some great Python, PHP, and Ruby frameworks that'll get you off and running very quickly. Java is a great choice for larger projects because of the compile-time checking and enterprise libraries and platforms.
It used to be the case that the standard libraries for different languages were pretty small and easily replicated - C, C++, Assembler, ML, LISP, etc.. came with the basics, but tended to chicken out when it came to standardizing on things like network communications, encryption, graphics, data file formats (including XML), even basic data structures like balanced trees and hashtables were left out!
Modern languages like Python, PHP, Ruby, and Java now come with a far more decent standard library and have many good third party libraries you can easily use, thanks in great part to their adoption of namespaces to keep libraries from colliding with one another, and garbage collection to standardize the memory management schemes of the libraries.
These paradigms don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you look at python, it supports functions and classes, but at the same time, everything is an object, including functions. You can mix and match functional/oop/procedural style all in one piece of code.
What I mean is, in functional languages (at least in Haskell, the only one I studied) there are no statements! functions are only allowed one expression inside them!! BUT, functions are first-class citizens, you can pass them around as parameters, along with a bunch of other abilities. They can do powerful things with few lines of code.
While in a procedural language like C, the only way you can pass functions around is by using function pointers, and that alone doesn't enable many powerful tasks.
In python, a function is a first-class citizen, but it can contain arbitrary number of statements. So you can have a function that contains procedural code, but you can pass it around just like functional languages.
Same goes for OOP. A language like Java doesn't allow you to write procedures/functions outside of a class. The only way to pass a function around is to wrap it in an object that implements that function, and then pass that object around.
In Python, you don't have this restriction.
For GUI I'd say that the Object-Oriented Paradigma is very well suited. The Window is an Object, the Textboxes are Objects, and the Okay-Button is one too. On the other Hand stuff like String Processing can be done with much less overhead and therefore more straightforward with simple procedural paradigma.
I don't think it is a question of the language neither. You can write functional, procedural or object-oriented in almost any popular language, although it might be some additional effort in some.
In order to answer your question, we need two elements:
Understanding of the characteristics of different architecture styles/patterns.
Understanding of the characteristics of different programming paradigms.
A list of software architecture styles/pattern is shown on the software architecture article on Wikipeida. And you can research on them easily on the web.
In short and general, Procedural is good for a model that follows a procedure, OOP is good for design, and Functional is good for high level programming.
I think you should try reading the history on each paradigm and see why people create it and you can understand them easily.
After understanding them both, you can link the items of architecture styles/patterns to programming paradigms.
I think that they are often not "versus", but you can combine them. I also think that oftentimes, the words you mention are just buzzwords. There are few people who actually know what "object-oriented" means, even if they are the fiercest evangelists of it.
One of my friends is writing a graphics app using NVIDIA CUDA. Application fits in very nicely with OOP paradigm and the problem can be decomposed into modules neatly. However, to use CUDA you need to use C, which doesn't support inheritance. Therefore, you need to be clever.
a) You devise a clever system which will emulate inheritance to a certain extent. It can be done!
i) You can use a hook system, which expects every child C of parent P to have a certain override for function F. You can make children register their overrides, which will be stored and called when required.
ii) You can use struct memory alignment feature to cast children into parents.
This can be neat but it's not easy to come up with future-proof, reliable solution. You will spend lots of time designing the system and there is no guarantee that you won't run into problems half-way through the project. Implementing multiple inheritance is even harder, if not almost impossible.
b) You can use consistent naming policy and use divide and conquer approach to create a program. It won't have any inheritance but because your functions are small, easy-to-understand and consistently formatted you don't need it. The amount of code you need to write goes up, it's very hard to stay focused and not succumb to easy solutions (hacks). However, this ninja way of coding is the C way of coding. Staying in balance between low-level freedom and writing good code. Good way to achieve this is to write prototypes using a functional language. For example, Haskell is extremely good for prototyping algorithms.
I tend towards approach b. I wrote a possible solution using approach a, and I will be honest, it felt very unnatural using that code.