Moving to the advantages of OOP, we would like to say that there are many as this is one of the core development approaches which is widely accepted. It means reusing some facilities rather than building them again and again. This is done with the use of a class. This is a condition created at the place of data storage you can say Databases where the same piece of data is held in two separate places.
So the data redundancy is one of the greatest advantages of OOP. This feature is more of a necessity for any programming languages; it helps users from doing re-work in many ways.
It is always easy and time-saving to maintain and modify the existing codes by incorporating new changes into them. With the use of data hiding and abstraction mechanism, we are filtering out limited data to exposure, which means we are maintaining security and providing necessary data to view. If you are practicing on OOPs, the design benefit a user will get is in terms of designing and fixing things easily and eliminating the risks if any. Here the Object-Oriented Programs forces the designers to have a long and extensive design phase, which results in better designs and fewer flaws.
This leads to more work done, finishing a better program, having more inbuilt features, and easier reading, writing and maintaining. Classes contain fields for attributes, and methods for behaviors. Remember the class is a template for modeling a dog, and an object is instantiated from the class representing an individual real world thing.
Enjoying the article? Scroll down to sign up for our free, bi-monthly newsletter. Of course OOP includes objects! Objects are instances of classes created with specific data, for example in the code snippet below Rufus is an instance of the Dog class. In JavaScript objects are a type of variable. This may cause confusion, because objects can also be declared without a class template in JavaScript, as shown at the beginning. Objects have states and behaviors. Behaviors are methods, the object can undertake.
Attributes are the information that is stored. Attributes are defined in the Class template. When objects are instantiated individual objects contain data stored in the Attributes field. For example, a puppy and a dog might be treated differently at pet camp. The birthday could define the state of an object, and allow the software to handle dogs of different ages differently.
Methods represent behaviors. When individual objects are instantiated, these objects can call the methods defined in the class. In the code snippet below, the bark method is defined in Dog class, and the bark method is called on the Rufus object. Methods often modify, update or delete data. The updateAttendance method adds a day the Dog attended the pet sitting camp. The attendance attribute is important to keep track of for billing Owners at the end of the month. Methods are how programmers promote reusability, and keep functionality encapsulated inside an object.
This reusability is a great benefit when debugging. Learn OOP without scrubbing through videos or documentation. Inheritance allows classes to inherit features of other classes. Put another way, parent classes extend attributes and behaviors to child classes. Inheritance supports reusability.
If basic attributes and behaviors are defined in a parent class, child classes can be created extending the functionality of the parent class, and adding additional attributes and behaviors. For example, herding dogs have the unique ability to herd animals. In other words, all herding dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are herding dogs. We represent this difference by creating a child class HerdingDog from the parent class Dog , and then add the unique herd behavior. The benefits of inheritance are programs can create a generic parent class, and then create more specific child classes as needed.
This simplifies overall programming, because instead of recreating the structure of the Dog class multiple times, child classes automatically gain access to functionalities within their parent class.
In the following code snippet, child class HerdingDog inherits the method bark from the parent class Dog , and the child class adds an additional method, herd. Notice that the HerdingDog class does not have a copy of the bark method, it inherits the bark method defined in the parent Dog class. When the code calls fluffy. Note: Parent class is also known as super class, or base class. Child class can also be called derived class, or extended class.
In JavaScript, inheritance is also known as prototyping. A prototype object acts as a template for another object to inherit properties and behaviors from. There can be multiple prototype object templates, creating a prototype chain.
Inheritance is from parent to child. Slavishly following the OOP lessons that one learned in school may not result in code that can be understood by a new generation of maintainers. Over the years, I have found that OOP helps me organize my intentions and the actions of my code, and to isolate data and functions, and all of those reduce complexity and make debugging dramatically easier. For instance, I just finished a large, multi-year research project in which the directions of the research changed dramatically over the many months.
Every time we found an answer to a question, another question arose that required some additional coding, some recoding. Few modules remained unaltered for more than a few months at a time, but some did. The few that did were ones that represented well-understood objects, and isolated them data and function from changes in the business logic due to new requirements.
If the edit history of a class module had a year of dust on it, I considered that a real success. Not a big deal, but took more than four years to evolve to answer all the questions. Some programmers I know would surely have used classes where 40 sufficed.
Functional Programming makes a lot of assumptions about the environment it runs in; so in OOP terms, programs that are functional run inside components or encapsulated environments; on the other side, OOP can leverage a lot from FP so as to achieve functionalities that are not dependent of the state of anything.
Small linear systems allow heavy application of algorithm driven design that favors functional design, such systems however are not flexible, there is a certain tolerance in which you can stretch the input and expect a valid output. Another problem with such systems is the way they mutate as they generate knowledge about the problem they are designed to solve- although as correctly pointed in the article linear execution is the way the processor runs the code, the learning curves and the changes that come with them are non linear and not continuous- this makes the scalability of such systems poor.
On the other end big non-linear systems that address a domain of problems favor object design. This adds additional complexity because the design itself requires the build-up of meta-knowledge of the problem domain at hand, and a planned approach that transforms that meta-knowledge to a continuous coherent structure.
Going back to my initial point, when software development started the problems it addressed where operational and not systemic. Running an executable with a certain parameters generated output and removed itself from the memory. As the industry progressed however the problems became more and more complicated, and the programs started expressing more features. This itself did not require a paradigm shift, but with those features came the constantly growing code bases and the mutation of the problem sets.
In a way you may say that software systems came to life- and life in its core is polymorphic. This rendered functional approaches progressively more difficult and expensive to maintain which naturally lead to the adoption of the object orientated design.
As time continued to pass, we saw the downfall of mainframes that ran huge loads, and the rise of clusters- this pushed further the object orientated approach because even more internal states had to managed, and the synchronization between servers required better encapsulation. Ten the web happened- it took some time but with the markup as a universal application structure, the functional approach began to regain momentum- from applets to advanced scripting the DOM and the robust data transfer layer made small linear programs relevant again.
This naturally lead to more and more features in the browsers which however enabled more and more complicated programs and so we arrived at the single page applications and the content management frameworks, and the cloud farms.
With the emergence of the IOT ecosystems we will see the same cycle again, we will go back to functional and than scale it to object. As a side note the conflict at hand here for me is similar to an argument which color is better the red one or the green one, without any context. If we add context we may have an argument that for example red pops up so it is better for errors than green, but then green is calm on the eyes so it is good for a background etc….
The change in paradigms follows the lessons that life teaches, and the same is true with political systems, philosophical ideas, cultural phenomenons, morals and so on. FP is a tool. Not every problem is a nail. Different tools for different problems. The discussion pops up everywhere once in a while.
Arguments are exchanged why certain things are more easy to do with OOP or FP, inheritance is discussed but no conclusion found. Next to computer science I studied cognitive psychology on university. What even most psychologists are not aware of is that the way of thinking in humans variies a lot.
Most people have vivid visual memories of past events or locations they have visited. For other pepole it completely impossible to have a mental picture in their inner eye. Some people do think in words and sentences. They live with a narrator who almost constantly talks to them. Others cannot even comprehend the idea how this would be to have a inner voice talking to them. Some people argue OOP is intuitive.
For me to model any real world in stateful objects performing methods is as counterintuitive as it can be. It makes me almost physical pain to look at these ways of modelling. I have studied computer science, but when OOP became omnipresent left development because I hated OOP programming and changed to a consulting career.
And there is very little chance that one party can clarify to the other party why the see OOP as a good or bad thing to model the world. OOP in itself is not the problem.
Organized people will find ways to organize code no matter what programming style, language style, framework they use. They will be well organized, know where to find things and do things in fastest possible manner. The stated components are the instances of classes.
Newer versions of them are instances of Inheritances. First of all, it is absolutely clear to me that there is not a slightest understanding what is the core idea of OOP. You create objects, gift them behaviour via interfaces, hide their data via encapsulation and then your code becomes very fluent when done right:.
Next, when you need a new Engine, you simply replace it, as you do in a real life. Again, you tell computer what to do, how to do it well, not at a business layer, at least. The behaviour you do. OOP is simply a way to organize your code. I started many years ago programming Ansi-C. Functional programming was great as long as the program was small, but as the sources grew, errors and side effects became hard to avoid and maintain.
With more than 30 kB of source code most of my project development slowed down significantly. With OOP things are very different. I still use some codes that are really old now, but still do their work. And over the time some classes have grown very big. Some of them compile more than For small projects, functional programming is quick and effortless. But if things grow, OOP is the most efficient tool to handle your codes. For web programming things are not so easy, as HTML can only generate global references.
And there are other approaches like web components, that have a similar target. OOP successful? If you mean widespread, then it is successful. However, I would say that it is not a success because the software I use on a daily basis that has been developed with OOP is just shitty, at every level. I have a shitty bug tracking app, a shitty time tracking app, a shitty database and a shitty communication app, a shitty email app, shitty collaboration app…..
The one thing they all have in common is their shittiness. The Trillion Dollar Disaster essay is spot on. Well your title is certainly provocative, but inaccurate. Most technology seems to evolve in a Hegelian fashion because humans are driving it. As one becomes older they have the opportunity to see this more and more. The younger generation tends to be more vocal and champions their particular beliefs which are by definition myopic.
Functional programming has a light shining on it now as the antithesis of the object based paradigm. As things evolve we will find some synthesis that includes concepts from both.
Object oriented software evolved as way to manage complexity in systems that were becoming increasingly complex. It does this exceedingly well. If you have over worked on a very large complex system, being able to address it at different levels of complexity, hierarchically is a god send over the alternative.
It is especially beneficial to other team members who may be new to a system and have to learn it. Having objects structured in the language of the domain being addressed makes this possible.
It is also interesting to see a sophisticated object system become slightly more than the some of its parts as the virtual models shape themselves to the natural objects and relationships they represent. Larger, complex systems are its sweet spot. It becomes less adept without some care when you need to distribute processing and do more complex algorithmic work over larger data sets and then bring that data together after processing.
The immutability favored by the functional paradigm is a good fit for things like this. But from what I have seen, functional reads and flows very poorly. So a lot really depends on the domain you are working in and the problem you are trying to solve as to which paradigm might be a better fit. You also have to consider what hardware things are being run on, and whether you are working in a compiled or interpreted language.
Software maintenance is another giant factor which is often overlooked. I think for proper treatment of the subject the entire SDL would need to be factored in.
In my opinion, looking at the pros and conns, functional programming has niche applications for which it is suited. I was currently brought on to a project using react-native with the functional paradigm.
It is a square peg in a round hole that I am stuck working on. Well I better get back to working on it. Anyway, this is just my opinion. I thought the article was well written, well thought out, and currently relevant. I found it through my search trying to find ways to appreciate the functional paradigm. OOP was not born as a religion. People where simply not able to handle side effects in monolithic procedural programs, so OOP was a good way to build closed, self contained portions of the code.
So, a class is basically a small program containing data and procedures. There is the tale about the banana, gorilla and the forest, that is used to blame OO. This is simply not true in most cases. OO gives access to the underlying classes in a way, it is not necessary to implement the underlying functions again and again. You do not get a simple banana, but a banana that can live and grow. If you only want a banana, there is no need to build in in an OO style.
Object classes with deep inheritance like windows UI-Elements , often inherit hundrets of useful properties the need to live in the Windows-Ecosystem. I have written codes 25 years ago in an object style way, that are still in use and do a good job. The are not that old because OO is great, but because OO made it simple to keep them running in changing environments.
Surely we can learn a lot from the FP-style. But I cannot see any reason, why we should not build objects or classes following these principles. OO is great paradigm for a very large class of problems, but not for all problems. I was at Sun in Java was never successful in browsers or on the desktop. What made Java so popular was its place as a very robust language for the server side static type safety, garbage collection, secure, etc.
WebLogic, Tomcat, etc. BTW, lambdas were under development in , along with many other features that are only emerging today. It might surprise some to know that modular Java was also under development in Also, Java already supported lambda functionality via anonymous classes and interfaces. Excellent article for a fascinating discussion.
I read every comment; thanks to everyone and especially the author. If everyone hates it, then OOP will not be widely spread. Its that simple, its widespread because not everyone hates it, and most do not hate it. It just happens that the ones who hate it are the most vocal about their hatred, its like a political campaign. The silent majority do not speak about it, they are too busy writing practical softwares, be it OOP or other paradigm that work for their applications. Your email address will not be published.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Latest Newsletter Podcast Company. What can OOP do that is unique to it? Tags: functional programming , object oriented programming , oop. The Stack Overflow Podcast is a weekly conversation about working in software development, learning to code, and the art and culture of computer programming.
Software design patterns are like best practices employed by many experienced software developers. You can use design patterns to make your application scalable and flexible. Giridhar Talla. While computing has changed a lot in the 20 years since the SOLID principles were conceived, they are still the best practices for designing software. Daniel Orner. The simulation runs deep, with new games creating multiple civilizations with histories, mythologies, and artifacts.
Our conversation below has been edited for clarity. Ryan Donovan. I think we can safely assume that M. Great Post. Love your response!
Your comment is a bunch of buzzwords without connection, trying to trigger the populist reader. Why do we hate working with OOP? Just some people hates it. It helps manage ideas into silos and in a way, OOP is like a ring fence around methods and modules — which are actually just functions but with added benefits. Object-oriented programmers love OOP because it forces modularity by sectioning off the code into a mentally digestible size and offers up the ability to handle states.
Methods become access points to the state and process the instance of the object as required. Functional programming and Object-Oriented programming are both valid paradigms and methods of coding.
However, one will thrive and work better for the project based on environment and requirements — but neither solution works best in all situations. Functional programming works well when complexity is contained. It thrives in front end spaces because back ends are often giving objects for front ends to process.
It needs to be packaged up, wrapped in ribbon before posting it away into the unknown.
0コメント