Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
After competing in and following this year's Google Code Jam competition, I couldn't help but notice the incredible number of [successful] contestants that used C/C++ and Java. The distribution of languages used throughout the competition can be seen here.
After programming in C/C++ for several years, I recently fell in love with Python for its readable/straightforward nature. More recently, I learned functional languages like OCaml, Scheme, and even logic languages like Prolog. These languages certainly have their merits and, in my opinion, can be applied more easily than C++ and Java for certain situations. For example, Scheme's use of call/cc simplifies backtracking (a tool required to answer several problems) and Prolog's logic specification, although inefficient due to its brute-force nature, can drastically simplify (and even automatically solve) certain problems that are difficult to wrap one's brain around.
It is clear that a competition contestant should use the tools that are best suited for the challenge. Even x86 assembly is Turing complete - that doesn't justify solving problems with it. In this case, why are the contestants that use less common languages like Scheme/Lisp, Prolog, and even Python significantly less successful than contestants that use C/C++ and Java? Worded differently, why don't successful contestants use languages that, although may be less mainstream, are arguably better tools for the job?
There are several motivations for my question. Most importantly, I would like to become a better programmer - both in the practical aspect and the competition aspect. After being introduced to such beautiful paradigms like functional and logic programming, it is discouraging to see so many people discard them in favor of C/C++ and Java. It even makes me question my admiration for said paradigms, worrying that I cannot be successful as a Lisp/Scheme/Prolog programmer in a programming competition.
Great question! As someone who has dabbled in programming contests a bit myself, I may have something to say.
[Let's get the standard disclaimer out of the way: contest programming is only loosely related to "programming in the real world", and while it tests algorithmic and problem-solving skills and the ability to come up with fast bug-free working code under time pressure, it does not necessarily correlate with being able to build large software projects, write maintainable code, etc (beyond the fact that well-structured programs are easier to debug).]
Now for some answers:
C++/Java are more common than other languages in the real world as well, so you'd expect to see a higher proportion anywhere. (But it's even higher in the contest population.)
Many of these participants are students, or got into contests as students, and C++/Java are more common "first languages" that students learn. (Undergrad students these days may start with Scheme, Haskell, Python, etc., but high-schoolers (often self-taught) less often.) In fact, many of the Eastern European participants still use Pascal, and are more amazing with it than the rest of us will ever be with any language.
The school- and college-level contests usually use these languages. The International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI) allows only C, C++ and Pascal (or maybe it allows Java now; I haven't kept up), and the ACM Intercollegiate Programming Contest (ACM ICPC) allows only C, C++ and Java. TopCoder allows C++, Java, C# and VB (really :p); and recently, Python. So you could say the "contest ecosystem" has more C++/Java programmers in it. Google Code Jam and IPSC are among the few contests that allow code in any language, actually.
Now the question is, in GCJ where the contestants are free to choose a language, why wouldn't they choose Python or Scheme? The most relevant factor is that these languages are slow. Sure, for most real-world programming they are easily fast enough, but for the tight loops that are often involved in getting a program to run under the n-second limit for all test cases, these languages don't cut it for any of the algorithmically more involved problems. (A problem designed to accept O(n log n) solutions but not Θ(n2) solutions for C/C++ frequently rules out even optimal O(n log n) solutions in slower languages. Even Java used to be given a handicap at USACO; I'm not sure this is still the case.)
Another factor is the libraries: C++ and Java have better libraries for frequently useful algorithms and data structures (e.g. red-black trees, C++'s next_permutation), while Python's libraries (good enough for the real world) are less useful here, and Prolog and Scheme... I don't know about their libraries. This is a relatively minor factor, because these programmers can write their own code when necessary. :-)
General-purpose multi-paradigm languages are more useful for just getting things done within the time constraints of the contest, than languages that force a philosophy or way of doing things on you. This is why Prolog will always remain unpopular, for instance. (General philosophy: some languages are "enabling" languages that let you do anything including shooting yourself in the foot, some are "directing" that force you to do things the right way.) This is also why C++ is three times more popular than Java in the general contest participants, and much more popular among the top contestants. Since code doesn't have to be read by anyone else, it's ok and even useful to have loop macros like FOR(i,n) (less code to type, and more importantly less chance of making a bug when in a hurry). Nothing against Java, there are a few top programmers who use Java too. :-)
Finally, although many of these top programmers may have C++/Java/Pascal as their "first language", they are not good because of their language, so you don't have to despair about that. Many of these same programmers have won contests like the ICFP contest even with intentionally using crazy languages like shell scripts, m4 (used in autoconf), and assembly (the team named "You Can't Spell Awesome Without ASM").
I liked Jerry Coffin's idea of plotting contestants of the Google AI contest, so I took all of the results and plotted them (calculated mean, standard deviation, and then graphed the normal distribution curves in Excel).
With Lua and JS, got this:
Without (there were few contestants, so maybe the results are skewed):
It looks like Java participants did markedly worse than the rest, while Go, Common Lisp, and C are on the better end.
Why we all speak English and not Esperanto? Well, it just happened so. Even though English is inconsistent and bloated and Esperanto is intentionally designed as 'better tool'.
Thus, one reason is a tradition. In most schools programming is still taught in C/C++, Java, Pascal or even Basic. And participate in those contests mostly students, which choose language they know better.
Also, you can notice that most algorithmic books feature psedudocode in style of Pascal or Ada, and very very rarely - Lisp. I don't know why, perhaps also a tradition. Or perhaps it's just not so good for the algorithms.
Another reason would be speed. Although it's not a problem for Google Code Jam, in almost all contests 2x speed gap is a difference between 'Accepted' and 'Time Limit' verdicts.
In other words, if optimal algorithm in C++ runs 10 times faster than in Ruby, it may mean that sub-optimal algorithm in C++ will still be faster than a good one in Ruby. And contest authors usually don't want to allow O(n^2) submissions, if O(n*logn) can be achieved.
First, I'd question your premise [edit: or what I take to be a premise -- that contestants using C++ and Java fare about equally well]. For example, here's what languages were used for the entries that came in the first 100 places and the last 100 places in Google's recent AI contest:
Contestants using C++ and Java did not seem to be anywhere close to equally successful in that contest. Contestants using Python didn't seem to fare particularly well either, though there were considerably fewer of them, weakening any conclusion in that regard.
Second, of course, an awful lot of the explanation (as others have pointed out) is undoubtedly just the number of people who are familiar with each language. There are probably more people taking a course in Java right now than the total number of people who've ever written any Lisp, Scheme or Prolog.
Edit: I think a third possibility is simply versatility. To pick an extreme example, Prolog is very well suited to a few problems, but equally poorly suited to many others. Few people can (or at least do) learn more than one or two languages well enough to use them in a contest, so most people who are interested in such things are likely to choose languages that can work reasonably well for almost anything, rather than attempting to learn a specialized language for every problem that might be chosen.
In nearly all Google Code Jam rounds, more of the higher-performing contestants code in C++.
Below are the language stats from Google Code Jam 2012 Round 1A, 1B, and 1C (listed top to bottom).
The number of contestants in each round are 3,686, 3,281, and 3,189 respectively.
fun question, probably should be community wiki.
Look at number of finalists by countries: http://www.go-hero.net/jam/10/regions. notice number of people from East Europe and Russia. those places have very strong C++ communities, as well as Java, for number of reasons.
look at number languages in qualifiers: http://www.go-hero.net/jam/10/languages/0 and finals: http://www.go-hero.net/jam/10/languages/6. C++ starts out less than half and has 75 percent in finals. either good programmers prefer C++ or C++ makes the programmers. Probably by the time you master C++, other things become trivial.
You are free to draw your own conclusions though.
First of all, as you have pointed C++ and Java are mainstream languages. These automatically means that people who start doing programming competitions will be introduced to them first - by the way who learns Lisp as a first language:) I also participate regularly in such competitions - I use C++ to compete, although my favorite language is Java. It is just I want to practice another language apart from Java - also C++ is a little bit less verbose and runs faster which is important for programming competitions.
Now to my point - people become experts first in mainstream languages. To participate in programming competitions you must have quite a good grasp of the language you are using. You don't have time to search on the internet for stupid things - like forgot a construct. It is just that speed is an important factor there. To use Lisp in a competition, you must be fond of it. I don't think there are such many people out there. Correct me if I am wrong. And honestly the pros you have mentioned like simplifies backtracking: In whatever language backtracking is easy - declare a method and just call it again for every possible outcome. It couldn't be simpler. I haven't felt till now that the language I am using is trying to trip up my feet for programming competitions.
OMG ... People are all going through the Stats and Figures !!
Lets not forget the basics.. These are the only two languages (mostly) which are taught to people in college/schools...!
That might answer the heavy rush!
A vital reason might be that every contests don't support languages like python or prolog. Specially ACM ICPC World Finals support C/C++ and Java. And TopCoder also supports only C++, Java, C#, VB, and now Python. It is natural for the contestants that they will choose one language that is available in every contest. Another reason might be execution speed. And yes, another reason is these are the languages that most of the people learn first.
Big libraries were a selling point for Java in ACM ICPC. It's handy to be able to realize you want some random data structure or algorithm and just pull it out of the standard libraries.
Keep in mind that C++ is not only the majority among all contestants, but as the rounds progress, its percentage just keeps and keeps improving.
I'd say it is true that most of the participants are students (However, since it is an open tournament with chances to a job interview with google, then you have to consider that many who participate are graduated). But the latest rounds are only for people with ton of experience. They are not just students who just learned to code in C++ / Java.
Of course, the student argument also works against languages like LISP and OcaML or ProLog. That is languages, that are used a lot in AI areas but in the mainstream world students are the most likely to be learning and use them.
Big contests other than google's support few languages, but that still wouldn't explain why Pascal or .net are not near the level of Java (As they tend to be equally supported in the major contest events).
A lot of the best coders in these contests know a lot of languages. But they still prefer to use C++ during the rounds it must be for a bigger reason than "learned C++" first.
I would argue against the claim that languages other than C++ or Java are better tools for the job. If direct data says that the finalists are more likely to use C++ and Java it is a direct contradiction to that claim.
Google AI competition data does not actually contradict any premise regarding the code jam. It actually does show that top coders are able to use languages like Common Lisp when it is truly the better tool for the job. If we want to use this data to assume that CLISP is a great tool for AI competitions, then we should also assume that C++ is a great tool for algorithm competitions like GCJ.
What are your criteria or things that you consider when you are an early adopter of a programming language or technology?
Two of the most common explanations I've heard are:
It should be "fun" (what I've heard from technical people).
It should be capable of solving our problem (what I've heard from business people).
So what's yours?
I've made this change several times over my career spanning various companies, moving from C to Java to Ruby to Haskell for the majority of my software development.
In all cases, I've been looking for more expressive power and better abstractions. This is always driven by business needs: how can I develop better software more cheaply? To me, the challenge of this problem is "fun," so fun rather automatically comes along with it. Justifying the business value to managers can be difficult, however; they often don't have the technical skills to understand why one programming language can be better than another, and are worried about moving to technology that they understand even less than the current one. (I solved this problem by taking over the manager's job as well: I started a company.)
It's hard to say what exactly to look for in a new language. You obviously don't have a detailed grasp of the language, or you would already be using it or know why you're not. Vast experience will bring an instinct that will make certain languages "smell" better than others, but—and this can make it especially hard to convince others to look at a new language—you won't know precisely what features give you big advantages. An example would be pattern matching: it's a feature found in relatively few languages, and though I knew about it, I had no idea when I started in with Haskell that this would be a key contributor to productivity improvement.
While it's negative ("avoid this") advice rather than positive ("do this") advice, one fairly easy rule is to avoid spending a lot of time on languages very similar to ones you already know well. If you already know Ruby, learning Python is not likely to teach you much in the way of big new things; C# and Java would be another example. (Although C# is starting to get a few interesting features that Java doesn't have.)
Looking at what the academic community is doing with a language may be helpful. If it's a fertile area of research for academics, there's almost certainly going to be interesting stuff in there, whereas if it's not it's quite possible that there's nothing interesting there to learn.
My criteria is simple:
wow factor
simple
gets things done
quick
I want it to do something easily that is hard to do with the tools I'm used to. So I moved to Python, and then Ruby, over Java because I could build a program incrementally, add functions easily, and express programs more concisely (esp. with Ruby, where I can pass blocks/Procs and have clean closures, plus the ability to define nice DSLs making use of blocks and yield.)
I took up Erlang because it expresses Actor-based concurrency well; this makes for easier network programs.
I took up Haskell because it fit with a number of formal methods tools I wanted to experiment with.
Open source.
Active developer community
Active user community, with a friendly mailing list or forum.
Some examples and documentation, preferably a tutorial
Desirable features (solves problems).
If it's for my personal fun, I need very little excuse, as I do love learning new things, and the best way of learning is by doing. If it's for an employer, customer, or client, the bar is MUCH higher -- I must be convinced that the "new stuff", even after accounting for ramp-up effects and the costs that come with being at the bleeding edge, will do a substantially better job at delivering value to the client (or customer or employer). It's a matter of professional attitude: my job's to deliver top value to the client -- having fun while so doing is auxiliary and secondary. So, in practice, "new" technologies (including languages) that I introduce in a professional setting will generally be ones I've previously grown comfortable and confident with in my own spare time.
Someone has once said something to the effect of:
"If learning a programming language doesn't change the way you think about programming, it's not worth learning."
That's one metric (out of many) to judge the value of learning new languages (or other technology) by. Using this, one might suggest learning the following languages:
C, because it makes you understand the Von Neumann architecture better than any other language (and it's sort-of random-access Turing Machine like, sorta'...).
LaTeX (as a programming language, not only as a typesetting system) because it makes you learn about string rewriting systems as a model of computation. Here, sed is similar; learn both, because they're also both useful tools :-)
Haskell, because it teaches you about functional programming, lambda calculus (yet another model of computation), lazy evaluation, type inference, algebraic datatypes (done with ease), decidability of type systems (i.e. learn to fear C++)
Scheme `(or (another) ,Lisp) for its macro system, and dynamic typing, and functional programming done somewhat differently.
SmallTalk, to learn Object-orientation (so I hear)
Java, to learn what earning money feels like :D
Forth, because wisdom bestowed forth learned implies.
... that doesn't explain why I learn python or shell scripting, though. I think you should take enlightenment with a grain of salt and a shovelful of pragmatism :)
Should be capable of solving the problem
Should be more adequate to solve the problem than other alternatives
Should be fun
Should have prompt support, either from a community or the company promoting it
A language should be:
Easy to use, to learn and to code in.
Consistent. Many languages have 50 legacy ways of doing things, this increases the learning curve and turns quite annoying. C# for me is one of those languages.
It should provide the most useful solution with the least amount of code. On the other hand sometimes you do need a bit of expressiveness to make sure you're not making a huge mistake.
The right tool for the right job and maybe the right tool for any job
My criteria that the language should have:
1. New ideas - If the language is just another Scheme variant, if you know one than I don't feel the need to learn this new one. I will learn it if I think I will learn something new.
2. Similar to another language, but better. For example, while Java and C++ have many of the same ideas, Java's automatic garbage collection makes it a better choice in many cases.
Gets the most done with the least amount of effort
Extremely interoperable with different protocols, out of the box
Fast
Has lots of libraries built in for stuff 99% of web developers do (PDF's, emailing, reporting, etc..)
It depends on why I'm learning the new language. If I'm learning it for fun, then it has to meet these criteria:
Is well it supported on my platform?
Something that runs only on Linux
isn't interesting to a Windows
programmer.
Will I learn something new? In
other words, does it come up with a
new way of doing things?
Does it look fun? I don't want to learn Ada even if it has new ways of doing things.
If I'm learning it for work, the criteria are different:
How mature is it? Has it been
proven to work in the real world?
How big is the community?
Will it make my job easier? I.e. is
it worth the time investment versus
just doing the task with a language
I already know.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
As far as I can tell, in spite of the countless millions or billions spent on OOP education, languages, and tools, OOP has not improved developer productivity or software reliability, nor has it reduced development costs. Few people use OOP in any rigorous sense (few people adhere to or understand principles such as LSP); there seems to be little uniformity or consistency to the approaches that people take to modelling problem domains. All too often, the class is used simply for its syntactic sugar; it puts the functions for a record type into their own little namespace.
I've written a large amount of code for a wide variety of applications. Although there have been places where true substitutable subtyping played a valuable role in the application, these have been pretty exceptional. In general, though much lip service is given to talk of "re-use" the reality is that unless a piece of code does exactly what you want it to do, there's very little cost-effective "re-use". It's extremely hard to design classes to be extensible in the right way, and so the cost of extension is normally so great that "re-use" simply isn't worthwhile.
In many regards, this doesn't surprise me. The real world isn't "OO", and the idea implicit in OO--that we can model things with some class taxonomy--seems to me very fundamentally flawed (I can sit on a table, a tree stump, a car bonnet, someone's lap--but not one of those is-a chair). Even if we move to more abstract domains, OO modelling is often difficult, counterintuitive, and ultimately unhelpful (consider the classic examples of circles/ellipses or squares/rectangles).
So what am I missing here? Where's the value of OOP, and why has all the time and money failed to make software any better?
The real world isn't "OO", and the idea implicit in OO--that we can model things with some class taxonomy--seems to me very fundamentally flawed
While this is true and has been observed by other people (take Stepanov, inventor of the STL), the rest is nonsense. OOP may be flawed and it certainly is no silver bullet but it makes large-scale applications much simpler because it's a great way to reduce dependencies. Of course, this is only true for “good” OOP design. Sloppy design won't give any advantage. But good, decoupled design can be modelled very well using OOP and not well using other techniques.
There are much better, more universal models (Haskell's type model comes to mind) but these are also often more complicated and/or difficult to implement efficiently. OOP is a good trade-off between extremes.
OOP isn't about creating re-usable classes, its about creating Usable classes.
All too often, the class is used
simply for its syntactic sugar; it
puts the functions for a record type
into their own little namespace.
Yes, I find this to be too prevalent as well. This is not Object Oriented Programming. It's Object Based Programming and data centric programing. In my 10 years of working with OO Languages, I see people mostly doing Object Based Programming. OBP breaks down very quickly IMHO since you are essentially getting the worst of both words: 1) Procedural programming without adhering to proven structured programming methodology and 2) OOP without adhering to to proven OOP methodology.
OOP done right is a beautiful thing. It makes very difficult problems easy to solve, and to the uninitiated (not trying to sound pompous there), it can almost seem like magic. That being said, OOP is just one tool in the toolbox of programming methodologies. It is not the be all end all methodology. It just happens to suit large business applications well.
Most developers who work in OOP languages are utilizing examples of OOP done right in the frameworks and types that they use day-to-day, but they just aren't aware of it. Here are some very simple examples: ADO.NET, Hibernate/NHibernate, Logging Frameworks, various language collection types, the ASP.NET stack, The JSP stack etc... These are all things that heavily rely on OOP in their codebases.
Reuse shouldn't be a goal of OOP - or any other paradigm for that matter.
Reuse is a side-effect of an good design and proper level of abstraction. Code achieves reuse by doing something useful, but not doing so much as to make it inflexible. It does not matter whether the code is OO or not - we reuse what works and is not trivial to do ourselves. That's pragmatism.
The thought of OO as a new way to get to reuse through inheritance is fundamentally flawed. As you note the LSP violations abound. Instead, OO is properly thought of as a method of managing the complexity of a problem domain. The goal is maintainability of a system over time. The primary tool for achieving this is the separation of public interface from a private implementation. This allows us to have rules like "This should only be modified using ..." enforced by the compiler, rather than code review.
Using this, I'm sure you will agree, allows us to create and maintain hugely complex systems. There is lots of value in that, and it is not easy to do in other paradigms.
Verging on religious but I would say that you're painting an overly grim picture of the state of modern OOP. I would argue that it actually has reduced costs, made large software projects manageable, and so forth. That doesn't mean it's solved the fundamental problem of software messiness, and it doesn't mean the average developer is an OOP expert. But the modularization of function into object-components has certainly reduced the amount of spaghetti code out there in the world.
I can think of dozens of libraries off the top of my head which are beautifully reusable and which have saved time and money that can never be calculated.
But to the extent that OOP has been a waste of time, I'd say it's because of lack of programmer training, compounded by the steep learning curve of learning a language specific OOP mapping. Some people "get" OOP and others never will.
There's no empirical evidence that suggests that object orientation is a more natural way for people to think about the world. There's some work in the field of psychology of programming that shows that OO is not somehow more fitting than other approaches.
Object-oriented representations do not appear to be universally more usable or less usable.
It is not enough to simply adopt OO methods and require developers to use such methods, because that might have a negative impact on developer productivity, as well as the quality of systems developed.
Which is from "On the Usability of OO Representations" from Communications of the ACM Oct. 2000. The articles mainly compares OO against theprocess-oriented approach. There's lots of study of how people who work with the OO method "think" (Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 2001, issue 54, or Human-Computer Interaction 1995, vol. 10 has a whole theme on OO studies), and from what I read, there's nothing to indicate some kind of naturalness to the OO approach that makes it better suited than a more traditional procedural approach.
I think the use of opaque context objects (HANDLEs in Win32, FILE*s in C, to name two well-known examples--hell, HANDLEs live on the other side of the kernel-mode barrier, and it really doesn't get much more encapsulated than that) is found in procedural code too; I'm struggling to see how this is something particular to OOP.
HANDLEs (and the rest of the WinAPI) is OOP! C doesn't support OOP very well so there's no special syntax but that doesn't mean it doesn't use the same concepts. WinAPI is in every sense of the word an object-oriented framework.
See, this is the trouble with every single discussion involving OOP or alternative techniques: nobody is clear about the definition, everyone is talking about something else and thus no consensus can be reached. Seems like a waste of time to me.
Its a programming paradigm.. Designed to make it easier for us mere mortals to break down a problem into smaller, workable pieces..
If you dont find it useful.. Don't use it, don't pay for training and be happy.
I on the other hand do find it useful, so I will :)
Relative to straight procedural programming, the first fundamental tenet of OOP is the notion of information hiding and encapsulation. This idea leads to the notion of the class that seperates the interface from implementation. These are hugely important concepts and the basis for putting a framework in place to think about program design in a different way and better (I think) way. You can't really argue against those properties - there is no trade-off made and it is always a cleaner way to modulize things.
Other aspects of OOP including inheritance and polymorphism are important too, but as others have alluded to, those are commonly over used. ie: Sometimes people use inheritance and/or polymorphism because they can, not because they should have. They are powerful concepts and very useful, but need to be used wisely and are not automatic winning advantages of OOP.
Relative to re-use. I agree re-use is over sold for OOP. It is a possible side effect of well defined objects, typically of more primitive/generic classes and is a direct result of the encapsulation and information hiding concepts. It is potentially easier to be re-used because the interfaces of well defined classes are just simply clearer and somewhat self documenting.
The problem with OOP is that it was oversold.
As Alan Kay originally conceived it, it was a great alternative to the prior practice of having raw data and all-global routines.
Then some management-consultant types latched onto it and sold it as the messiah of software, and lemming-like, academia and industry tumbled along after it.
Now they are lemming-like tumbling after other good ideas being oversold, such as functional programming.
So what would I do differently? Plenty, and I wrote a book on this. (It's out of print - I don't get a cent, but you can still get copies.)Amazon
My constructive answer is to look at programming not as a way of modeling things in the real world, but as a way of encoding requirements.
That is very different, and is based on information theory (at a level that anyone can understand). It says that programming can be looked at as a process of defining languages, and skill in doing so is essential for good programming.
It elevates the concept of domain-specific-languages (DSLs). It agrees emphatically with DRY (don't repeat yourself). It gives a big thumbs-up to code generation. It results in software with massively less data structure than is typical for modern applications.
It seeks to re-invigorate the idea that the way forward lies in inventiveness, and that even well-accepted ideas should be questioned.
HANDLEs (and the rest of the WinAPI) is OOP!
Are they, though? They're not inheritable, they're certainly not substitutable, they lack well-defined classes... I think they fall a long way short of "OOP".
Have you ever created a window using WinAPI? Then you should know that you define a class (RegisterClass), create an instance of it (CreateWindow), call virtual methods (WndProc) and base-class methods (DefWindowProc) and so on. WinAPI even takes the nomenclature from SmallTalk OOP, calling the methods “messages” (Window Messages).
Handles may not be inheritable but then, there's final in Java. They don't lack a class, they are a placeholder for the class: That's what the word “handle” means. Looking at architectures like MFC or .NET WinForms it's immediately obvious that except for the syntax, nothing much is different from the WinAPI.
Yes OOP did not solve all our problems, sorry about that. We are, however working on SOA which will solve all those problems.
OOP lends itself well to programming internal computer structures like GUI "widgets", where for example SelectList and TextBox may be subtypes of Item, which has common methods such as "move" and "resize".
The trouble is, 90% of us work in the world of business where we are working with business concepts such as Invoice, Employee, Job, Order. These do not lend themselves so well to OOP because the "objects" are more nebulous, subject to change according to business re-engineering and so on.
The worst case is where OO is enthusiastically applied to databases, including the egregious OO "enhancements" to SQL databases - which are rightly ignored except by database noobs who assume they must be the right way to do things because they are newer.
In my experience of reviewing code and design of projects I have been through, the value of OOP is not fully realised because alot of developers have not properly conceptualised the object-oriented model in their minds. Thus they do not program with OO design, very often continuing to write top-down procedural code making the classes a pretty flat design. (if you can even call that "design" in the first place)
It is pretty scary to observe how little colleagues know about what an abstract class or interface are, let alone properly design an inheritance hierarchy to suit the business needs.
However, when good OO design is present, it is just sheer joy reading the code and seeing the code naturally fall into place into intuitive components/classes. I have always perceived system architecture and design like designing the various departments and staff jobs in a company - all are there to accomplish a certain piece of work in the grand scheme of things, emitting the synergy required to propel the organisation/system forward.
That, of course, is quite rare unfortunately. Like the ratio of beautifully-designed versus horrendously-designed physical objects in the world, the same can pretty much be said about software engineering and design. Having the good tools at one's disposal does not necessarily confer good practices and results.
Maybe a bonnet, lap or a tree is not a chair but they all are ISittable.
I think those real world things are objects
You do?
What methods does an invoice have? Oh, wait. It can't pay itself, it can't send itself, it can't compare itself with the items that the vendor actually delivered. It doesn't have any methods at all; it's totally inert and non-functional. It's a record type (a struct, if you prefer), not an object.
Likewise the other things you mention.
Just because something is real does not make it an object in the OO sense of the word. OO objects are a peculiar coupling of state and behaviour that can act of their own accord. That isn't something that's abundant in the real world.
I have been writing OO code for the last 9 years or so. Other than using messaging, it's hard for me to imagine other approach. The main benefit I see totally in line with what CodingTheWheel said: modularisation. OO naturally leads me to construct my applications from modular components that have clean interfaces and clear responsibilities (i.e. loosely coupled, highly cohesive code with a clear separation of concerns).
I think where OO breaks down is when people create deeply nested class heirarchies. This can lead to complexity. However, factoring out common finctionality into a base class, then reusing that in other descendant classes is a deeply elegant thing, IMHO!
In the first place, the observations are somewhat sloppy. I don't have any figures on software productivity, and have no good reason to believe it's not going up. Further, since there are many people who abuse OO, good use of OO would not necessarily cause a productivity improvement even if OO was the greatest thing since peanut butter. After all, an incompetent brain surgeon is likely to be worse than none at all, but a competent one can be invaluable.
That being said, OO is a different way of arranging things, attaching procedural code to data rather than having procedural code operate on data. This should be at least a small win by itself, since there are cases where the OO approach is more natural. There's nothing stopping anybody from writing a procedural API in C++, after all, and so the option of providing objects instead makes the language more versatile.
Further, there's something OO does very well: it allows old code to call new code automatically, with no changes. If I have code that manages things procedurally, and I add a new sort of thing that's similar but not identical to an earlier one, I have to change the procedural code. In an OO system, I inherit the functionality, change what I like, and the new code is automatically used due to polymorphism. This increases the locality of changes, and that is a Good Thing.
The downside is that good OO isn't free: it requires time and effort to learn it properly. Since it's a major buzzword, there's lots of people and products who do it badly, just for the sake of doing it. It's not easier to design a good class interface than a good procedural API, and there's all sorts of easy-to-make errors (like deep class hierarchies).
Think of it as a different sort of tool, not necessarily generally better. A hammer in addition to a screwdriver, say. Perhaps we will eventually get out of the practice of software engineering as knowing which wrench to use to hammer the screw in.
#Sean
However, factoring out common finctionality into a base class, then reusing that in other descendant classes is a deeply elegant thing, IMHO!
But "procedural" developers have been doing that for decades anyway. The syntax and terminology might differ, but the effect is identical. There is more to OOP than "reusing common functionality in a base class", and I might even go so far as to say that that is hard to describe as OOP at all; calling the same function from different bits of code is a technique as old as the subprocedure itself.
#Konrad
OOP may be flawed and it certainly is no silver bullet but it makes large-scale applications much simpler because it's a great way to reduce dependencies
That is the dogma. I am not seeing what makes OOP significantly better in this regard than procedural programming of old. Whenever I make a procedure call I am isolating myself from the specifics of the implementation.
To me, there is a lot of value in the OOP syntax itself. Using objects that attempt to represent real things or data structures is often much more useful than trying to use a bunch of different flat (or "floating") functions to do the same thing with the same data. There is a certain natural "flow" to things with good OOP that just makes more sense to read, write, and maintain long term.
It doesn't necessarily matter that an Invoice isn't really an "object" with functions that it can perform itself - the object instance can exist just to perform functions on the data without having to know what type of data is actually there. The function "invoice.toJson()" can be called successfully without having to know what kind of data "invoice" is - the result will be Json, no matter it if comes from a database, XML, CSV, or even another JSON object. With procedural functions, you all the sudden have to know more about your data, and end up with functions like "xmlToJson()", "csvToJson()", "dbToJson()", etc. It eventually becomes a complete mess and a HUGE headache if you ever change the underlying data type.
The point of OOP is to hide the actual implementation by abstracting it away. To achieve that goal, you must create a public interface. To make your job easier while creating that public interface and keep things DRY, you must use concepts like abstract classes, inheritance, polymorphism, and design patterns.
So to me, the real overriding goal of OOP is to make future code maintenance and changes easier. But even beyond that, it can really simplify things a lot when done correctly in ways that procedural code never could. It doesn't matter if it doesn't match the "real world" - programming with code is not interacting with real world objects anyways. OOP is just a tool that makes my job easier and faster - I'll go for that any day.
#CodingTheWheel
But to the extent that OOP has been a waste of time, I'd say it's because of lack of programmer training, compounded by the steep learning curve of learning a language specific OOP mapping. Some people "get" OOP and others never will.
I dunno if that's really surprising, though. I think that technically sound approaches (LSP being the obvious thing) make hard to use, but if we don't use such approaches it makes the code brittle and inextensible anyway (because we can no longer reason about it). And I think the counterintuitive results that OOP leads us to makes it unsurprising that people don't pick it up.
More significantly, since software is already fundamentally too hard for normal humans to write reliably and accurately, should we really be extolling a technique that is consistently taught poorly and appears hard to learn? If the benefits were clear-cut then it might be worth persevering in spite of the difficulty, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
#Jeff
Relative to straight procedural programming, the first fundamental tenet of OOP is the notion of information hiding and encapsulation. This idea leads to the notion of the class that seperates the interface from implementation.
Which has the more hidden implementation: C++'s iostreams, or C's FILE*s?
I think the use of opaque context objects (HANDLEs in Win32, FILE*s in C, to name two well-known examples--hell, HANDLEs live on the other side of the kernel-mode barrier, and it really doesn't get much more encapsulated than that) is found in procedural code too; I'm struggling to see how this is something particular to OOP.
I suppose that may be a part of why I'm struggling to see the benefits: the parts that are obviously good are not specific to OOP, whereas the parts that are specific to OOP are not obviously good! (this is not to say that they are necessarily bad, but rather that I have not seen the evidence that they are widely-applicable and consistently beneficial).
In the only dev blog I read, by that Joel-On-Software-Founder-of-SO guy, I read a long time ago that OO does not lead to productivity increases. Automatic memory management does. Cool. Who can deny the data?
I still believe that OO is to non-OO what programming with functions is to programming everything inline. (And I should know, as I started with GWBasic.) When you refactor code to use functions, variable2654 becomes variable3 of the method you're in. Or, better yet, it's got a name that you can understand, and if the function is short, it's called value and that's sufficient for full comprehension.
When code with no functions becomes code with methods, you get to delete miles of code.
When you refactor code to be truly OO, b, c, q, and Z become this, this, this and this. And since I don't believe in using the this keyword, you get to delete miles of code. Actually, you get to do that even if you use this.
I do not think OO is natural metaphor. I don't think language is a natural metaphor either, nor do I think that Fowler's "smells" are better than saying "this code tastes bad." That said, I think that OO is not about natural metaphors and people who think the objects just pop out at you are basically missing the point. You define the object universe, and better object universes result in code that is shorter, easier to understand, works better, or all of these (and some criteria I am forgetting). I think that people who use the customers/domain's natural objects as programming objects are missing the power to redefine the universe.
For instance, when you do an airline reservation system, what you call a reservation might not correspond to a legal/business reservation at all.
Some of the basic concepts are really cool tools I think that most people exaggerate with that whole "when you have a hammer, they're all nails" thing. I think that the other side of the coin/mirror is just as true: when you have a gadget like polymorphism/inheritance, you begin to find uses where it fits like a glove/sock/contact-lens. The tools of OO are very powerful. Single-inheritance is, I think, absolutely necessary for people not to get carried away, my own multi-inheritance software not withstanding.
What's the point of OOP? I think it's a great way to handle an absolutely massive code base. I think it lets you organize and reorganize you code and gives you a language to do that in (beyond the programming language you're working in), and modularizes code in a pretty natural and easy-to-understand way.
OOP is destined to be misunderstood by the majority of developers This is because it's an eye-opening process like life: you understand OO more and more with experience, and start avoiding certain patterns and employing others as you get wiser. One of the best examples is that you stop using inheritance for classes that you do not control, and prefer the Facade pattern instead.
Regarding your mini-essay/question
I did want to mention that you're right. Reusability is a pipe-dream, for the most part. Here's a quote from Anders Hejilsberg about that topic (brilliant) from here:
If you ask beginning programmers to
write a calendar control, they often
think to themselves, "Oh, I'm going to
write the world's best calendar
control! It's going to be polymorphic
with respect to the kind of calendar.
It will have displayers, and mungers,
and this, that, and the other." They
need to ship a calendar application in
two months. They put all this
infrastructure into place in the
control, and then spend two days
writing a crappy calendar application
on top of it. They'll think, "In the
next version of the application, I'm
going to do so much more."
Once they start thinking about how
they're actually going to implement
all of these other concretizations of
their abstract design, however, it
turns out that their design is
completely wrong. And now they've
painted themself into a corner, and
they have to throw the whole thing
out. I have seen that over and over.
I'm a strong believer in being
minimalistic. Unless you actually are
going to solve the general problem,
don't try and put in place a framework
for solving a specific one, because
you don't know what that framework
should look like.
Have you ever created a window using WinAPI?
More times than I care to remember.
Then you should know that you define a class (RegisterClass), create an instance of it (CreateWindow), call virtual methods (WndProc) and base-class methods (DefWindowProc) and so on. WinAPI even takes the nomenclature from SmallTalk OOP, calling the methods “messages” (Window Messages).
Then you'll also know that it does no message dispatch of its own, which is a big gaping void. It also has crappy subclassing.
Handles may not be inheritable but then, there's final in Java. They don't lack a class, they are a placeholder for the class: That's what the word “handle” means. Looking at architectures like MFC or .NET WinForms it's immediately obvious that except for the syntax, nothing much is different from the WinAPI.
They're not inheritable either in interface or implementation, minimally substitutable, and they're not substantially different from what procedural coders have been doing since forever.
Is this really it? The best bits of OOP are just... traditional procedural code? That's the big deal?
I agree completely with InSciTek Jeff's answer, I'll just add the following refinements:
Information hiding and encapsulation: Critical for any maintainable code. Can be done by being careful in any programming language, doesn't require OO features, but doing it will make your code slightly OO-like.
Inheritance: There is one important application domain for which all those OO is-a-kind-of and contains-a relationships are a perfect fit: Graphical User Interfaces. If you try to build GUIs without OO language support, you will end up building OO-like features anyway, and it's harder and more error-prone without language support. Glade (recently) and X11 Xt (historically) for example.
Using OO features (especially deeply nested abstract hierarchies), when there is no point, is pointless. But for some application domains, there really is a point.
I believe the most beneficial quality of OOP is data hiding/managing. However, there are a LOT of examples where OOP is misused and I think this is where the confusion comes in.
Just because you can make something into an object does not mean you should. However, if doing so will make your code more organized/easier to read then you definitely should.
A great practical example where OOP is very helpful is with a "product" class and objects that I use on our website. Since every page is a product, and every product has references to other products, it can get very confusing as to which product the data you have refers to. Is this "strURL" variable the link to the current page, or to the home page, or to the statistics page? Sure you could make all kinds of different variable that refer to the same information, but proCurrentPage->strURL, is much easier to understand (for a developer).
In addition, attaching functions to those pages is much cleaner. I can do proCurrentPage->CleanCache(); Followed by proDisplayItem->RenderPromo(); If I just called those functions and had it assume the current data was available, who knows what kind of evil would occur. Also, if I had to pass the correct variables into those functions, I am back to the problem of having all kinds of variables for the different products laying around.
Instead, using objects, all my product data and functions are nice and clean and easy to understand.
However. The big problem with OOP is when somebody believes that EVERYTHING should be OOP. This creates a lot of problems. I have 88 tables in my database. I only have about 6 classes, and maybe I should have about 10. I definitely don't need 88 classes. Most of the time directly accessing those tables is perfectly understandable in the circumstances I use it, and OOP would actually make it more difficult/tedious to get to the core functionality of what is occurring.
I believe a hybrid model of objects where useful and procedural where practical is the most effective method of coding. It's a shame we have all these religious wars where people advocate using one method at the expense of the others. They are both good, and they both have their place. Most of the time, there are uses for both methods in every larger project (In some smaller projects, a single object, or a few procedures may be all that you need).
I don't care for reuse as much as I do for readability. The latter means your code is easier to change. That alone is worth in gold in the craft of building software.
And OO is a pretty damn effective way to make your programs readable. Reuse or no reuse.
"The real world isn't "OO","
Really? My world is full of objects. I'm using one now. I think that having software "objects" model the real objects might not be such a bad thing.
OO designs for conceptual things (like Windows, not real world windows, but the display panels on my computer monitor) often leave a lot to be desired. But for real world things like invoices, shipping orders, insurance claims and what-not, I think those real world things are objects. I have a stack on my desk, so they must be real.
The point of OOP is to give the programmer another means for describing and communicating a solution to a problem in code to machines and people. The most important part of that is the communication to people. OOP allows the programmer to declare what they mean in the code through rules that are enforced in the OO language.
Contrary to many arguments on this topic, OOP and OO concepts are pervasive throughout all code including code in non-OOP languages such as C. Many advanced non-OO programmers will approximate the features of objects even in non-OO languages.
Having OO built into the language merely gives the programmer another means of expression.
The biggest part to writing code is not communication with the machine, that part is easy, the biggest part is communication with human programmers.