Related
I often read about the importance of readability and maintainability. Or, I read very strong opinions about which syntax features are bad or good. Or discussions about the values of certain paradigms, like OOP.
Aside from that, this same question floats about in my mind whenever I read debates on SO or Meta about subjective questions. Or read questions about best practices and sometimes find myself or others disagreeing.
What role does subjectiveness play within the programming realm?
Sometimes I think it plays a large role. Software developers are engineers in a way, but also people. A large part of programming is dealing with code that's human readable. This is very different from Math or Physics or other disciplines with very exact and structured rules. Here the exact structure and rules are largely up in the air, changeable on a whim, and hence the amount of languages in existence. And one person may find one language very readable, and another person may find their own language the most comforting.
The same with practices. One person may not like certain accepted practices. I myself find splitting classes into different files very unreadable, for instance.
But, I can't say rules haven't helped in general. Certain practices have and do make life easier. And new languages have given rise to syntax and structure that make life easier. There's certainly been a progression towards code that is easier to read and maintain even given a largely diverse group of people. So maybe these things aren't as subjective as I thought.
It reminds me, in a way, of UI design. Certainly it's subjective, but then there's an entire discipline involved in crafting good UI and it tends to work.
Is there something non-subjective about the ideas behind maintainability, readability, and other best practices? Is there something tangible to grasp when one develops a new language or thinks of new practices?
Arguably your question is really about the distinction between programming, which is mathematical, algorithmic and scientific, and software engineering, which is subjective, variable and human-focused.
Great programmers are not necessarily great software engineers, and vice versa. The two skillsets, while not exclusive by any means, have less overlap than they appear at first. Their relative importance depends a lot on the project: a brilliant programmer working alone can turn out amazing examples of technical genius, and it doesn't matter that nobody else can understand or maintain it, because he's not going to share the code anyway. But move into an enterprise environment -- like corporate in-house software development -- and I'll gladly trade you ten "cave troll" geniuses for a mediocre programmer who understands the importance of readability and documentation.
It's been my experience that the world needs great software engineers more than it needs great programmers. Relatively few people in this day and age are writing software which is truly performance-critical (OS kernels, compilers, graphics engines, realtime embedded systems, etc), and the Internet allows mediocre programmers to quickly grab algorithmic solutions for problems they couldn't solve alone. But nearly everyone writing professional code has to work within a team. And team productivity rises and falls dramatically on the ability of its members to communicate effectively and distribute workload efficiently, two skills which are highly subjective and impossible to prove by rigid formula.
Most software engineering principles are built on experience rather than objective law. Much like the social sciences, we study, learn, adapt and apply -- but with no real guarantees of outcome. All we can say is that some things seem to work better than others in most groups.
I think, a lot of it is necessarily determined by how much our mind is able to process at one time. So it comes down to how much the language and tools enable a team or a developer to break down the problem into chunks that are meaningful by themselves, but not so large that it becomes too hard to grasp them. The common theme is the art of organizing information (in this case, the code, the logic, ...) But that's not so different from Maths or Physics, by the way.
Just as the best authors borrow from many styles, the best programmers keep a huge range of patterns in their mental arsenal. Slavishly following a few patterns and adhering to some absolute truth is both lazy and dangerous.
Put it another way, the day we rely on robots for code review is the day I quit.
It all depends on your point of view :-)
But to answer your questions, I think one way to view subjectivity is to recognize that software languages, tools, and best practices are a shared means of communication among individuals. Yes, a programming language is a formal way of instructing a computer how to behave, but a programming language may also be viewed as a way to define and communicate specifications to a high level of detail (the code is the ultimate spec, is it not?).
So as far as we may want to concern ourselves with the degree of subjectivity in software languages, tools, and best practices, I would say that the lack of subjectivity may indicate how well communication is facilitated.
Yes, individuals have certain proclivities that are expressed in their habits and tendencies, but that should not ultimately matter too much in the perfect platform for development.
Turning to my Maths PhD wife I asked if there's any subjectivity in mathematics. Her answer is yes there is, mainly in the way we as humans achieve the answer.
If a mathematical proof is the result, how you get to that result can vary. If the dataset is large you may need to use a computer, which can introduce errors, and thus debated about whether that is the right approach. Or sometimes mathematicians can disagree on the theory - one is trying to prove that x is true while the other is trying to prove that x is false.
I think the same thing exists in computer science. A correct answer is a program that runs correctly, but that definition of correct may be different for each project. Sometimes correct means no bugs. Sometimes it means running efficiently.
From here programmers can argue how best to achieve the "correct" result. A good example of this is is the FizzBuzz application. A simple answer would be just a for loop, but Enterprise FizzBuzz is also "correct" in that it produces the correct answer, but is generally laughed at as "bad" engineering due to its overcomplication of the idea (it was a joke app after all).
How large a role does subjectiveness play in programming? I'd say it's a very large part of what we do, simply because we are human, and because there are multiple ways of getting the "correct" answer so there is disagreement over which way is the best.
Studies have been done showing that certain practices reduce defect rates in software. For instance, a study found a strong correlation between cyclomatic complexity and the probability of being fault-prone. Other studies show the average effectiveness of design and code inspections are 55 and 60 percent. So it appears to be in our best interests to favor simplicity, check metrics, and do code reviews.
We're talking probabilities here, though. If I review your code, I'm not guaranteed to find 60% of your bugs. There are also few absolutes in software development; experienced developers know that the correct answer is generally "it depends." That said, there are a number of practices with objective data in their favor.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I started my college two years ago, and since then I keep hearing "design your classes first". I really ask myself sometimes, should my solution to be a bunch of objects in the first place! Some say that you don't see its benefits because your codebase is very small - university projects. The project size excuse just don't go down my throat. If the solution goes well with the project, I believe it should be the right one also with the macro-version of that project.
I am not saying OOP is bad, I just feel it is abused in classrooms where students like me are told day and night that OOP is the right way.
IMHO, the proper answer shouldn't come from a professor, I prefer to hear it from real engineers in the field.
Is OOP the right approach always?
When is OOP the best approach?
When is OOP a bad approach?
This is a very general question. I am not asking for definite answers, just some real design experience from the field.
I don't care about performance. I am asking about design. I know it is engineering in real life.
==================================================================================
Thankful for all contributions. I chose Nosredna answer, because she addressed my questions in general and convinced me that I was wrong about the following :
If the solution goes well with the project, I believe it should be the right one also with the macro-version of that project.
The professors have the disadvantage that they can't put you on huge, nasty programs that go on for years, being worked on by many different programmers. They have to use rather unconvincing toy examples and try to trick you into seeing the bigger picture.
Essentially, they have to scare you into believing that when an HO gauge model train hits you, it'll tear your leg clean off. Only the most convincing profs can do it.
"If the solution goes well with the project, I believe it should be the right one also with the macro-version of that project."
That's where I disagree. A small project fits into your brain. The large version of it might not. To me, the benefit of OO is hiding enough of the details so that the big picture can still be crammed into my head. If you lack OO, you can still manage, but it means finding other ways to hide the complexity.
Keep your eye on the real goal--producing reliable code. OO works well in large programs because it helps you manage complexity. It also can aid in reusability.
But OO isn't the goal. Good code is the goal. If a procedural approach works and never gets complex, you win!
OOP is a real world computer concept that the university would be derelict to leave out of the curriculum. When you apply for jobs, you will be expected to be conversant in it.
That being said, pace jalf, OOP was primarily designed as a way to manage complexity. University projects written by one or two students on homework time are not a realistic setting for large projects like this, so the examples feel (and are) toy examples.
Also, it is important to realize that not everyone really sees OOP the same way. Some see it about encapsulation, and make huge classes that are very complex, but hide their state from any outside caller. Others want to make sure that a given object is only responsible for doing one thing and make a lot of small classes. Some seek an object model that closely mirrors real world abstractions that the program is trying to relate to, others see the object model as about how to organize the technical architecture of the problem, rather than the real world business model. There is no one true way with OOP, but at its core it was introduced as a way of managing complexity and keeping larger programs more maintainable over time.
OOP is the right approach when your data can be well structured into objects.
For instance, for an embedded device that's processing an incoming stream of bytes from a sensor, there might not be much that can be clearly objectified.
Also in cases where ABSOLUTE control over performance is critical (when every cycle counts), an OOP approach can introduce costs that might be nontrivial to compute.
In the real world, most often, your problem can be VERY well described in terms of objects, although the law of leaky abstractions must not be forgotten!
Industry generally resolves, eventually, for the most part, to using the right tool for the job, and you can see OOP in many many places. Exceptions are often made for high-performance and low-level. Of course, there are no hard and fast rules.
You can hammer in a screw if you stick at it long enough...
My 5 cents:
OOP is just one instance of a larger pattern: dealing with complexity by breaking down a big problem into smaller ones. Our feeble minds are limited to a small number of ideas they can handle at any given time. Even a moderately sized commercial application has more moving parts than most folks can fully maintain a complete mental picture of at a time. Some of the more successful design paradigms in software engineering capitalize on the notion of dealing with complexity. Whether it's breaking your architecture into layers, your program into modules, doing a functional breakdown of actions, using pre-built components, leveraging independent web services, or identifying objects and classes in your problem and solution spaces. Those are all tools for taming the beast that is complexity.
OOP has been particularly successful in several classes of problems. It works well when you can think about the problem in terms of "things" and the interactions between them. It works quite well when you're dealing with data, with user interfaces, or building general purpose libraries. The prevalence of these classes of apps helped make OOP ubiquitous. Other classes of problems call for other or additional tools. Operating systems distinguish kernel and user spaces, and isolate processes in part to avoid the complexity creep. Functional programming keeps data immutable to avoid the mesh of dependencies that occur with multithreading. Neither is your classic OOP design and yet they are crucial and successful in their own domains.
In your career, you are likely to face problems and systems that are larger than you could tackle entirely on your own. Your teacher are not only trying to equip you with the present tools of the trade. They are trying to convey that there are patterns and tools available for you to use when you are attempting to model real world problems. It's in your best interest to accumulate a collection of tools for your toolbox and choose the right tool(s) for the job. OOP is a powerful tool to have, but by far not the only one.
No...OOP is not always the best approach.
(A true) OOP design is the best approach when your problem can best be modeled as a set of objects that can accomplish your goals by communicating/using one another.
Good question...but I'm guessing Scientific/Analytic applications are probably the best example. The majority of their problems can best be approached by functional programming rather than object oriented programming.
...that being said, let the flaming begin. I'm sure there are holes and I'd love to learn why.
Is OOP the right approach always?
Nope.
When OOP is the best approach?
When it helps you.
When OOP is a bad approach?
When it impedes you.
That's really as specific as it gets. Sometimes you don't need OOP, sometimes it's not available in the language you're using, sometimes it really doesn't make a difference.
I will say this though, when it comes to technique and best practices continue to double check what your professors tell you. Just because they're teachers doesn't mean they're experts.
It might be helpful to think of the P of OOP as Principles rather than Programming. Whether or not you represent every domain concept as an object, the main OO principles (encapsulation, abstraction, polymorphism) are all immensely useful at solving particular problems, especially as software gets more complex. It's more important to have maintainable code than to have represented everything in a "pure" object hierarchy.
My experience is that OOP is mostly useful on a small scale - defining a class with certain behavior, and which maintains a number of invariants. Then I essentially just use that as yet another datatype to use with generic or functional programming.
Trying to design an entire application solely in terms of OOP just leads to huge bloated class hierarchies, spaghetti code where everything is hidden behind 5 layers of indirection, and even the smallest, most trivial unit of work ends up taking three seconds to execute.
OOP is useful --- when combined with other approaches.
But ultimately, every program is about doing, not about being. And OOP is about "being". About expressing that "this is a car. The car has 4 wheels. The car is green".
It's not interesting to model a car in your application. It's interesting to model *the car doing stuff. Processes are what's interesting, and in a nutshell, they are what your program should be organized around. Individual classes are there to help you express what your processes should do (if you want to talk about car things, it's easier to have a car object than having to talk about all the individual components it is made up of, but the only reason you want to talk about the car at all is because of what is happening to it. The user is driving it, or selling it, or you are modelling what happens to it if someone hits it with a hammer)
So I prefer to think in terms of functions. Those functions might operate on objects, sure, but the functions are the ones my program is about. And they don't have to "belong" to any particular class.
Like most questions of this nature, the answer is "it depends."
Frederick P. Brooks said it the best in "The Mythical Man-Month" that "there is no single strategy, technique or trick that will exponentially raise the productivity of programmers." You wouldn't use a broad sword to make a surgical incision and you wouldn't use a scalpel in a sword fight.
There are amazing benefits to OOP, but you need to be comfortable with the pattern to take advantage of these benefits. Knowing and understanding OOP also allows you to create a cleaner procedural implementation for your solutions because of the underlying concepts of separation of concerns.
I've seen some of the best results of using OOP when adding new functionality to a system or maintaining/improving a system. Unfortunately, it's not easy to get that kind of experience while attending a university.
I have yet to work on a project in the industry that was not a combination of both functional and OOP. It really comes down to your requirements and what are the best (maybe cheapest?) solutions for them.
OOP is not always the best approach. However it is the best approach in the majority of applications.
OOP is the best approach in any system that lend itself to objects and the interaction of objects. Most business applications are best implemented in an object-oriented way.
OOP is a bad approach for small 1 off applications where the cost of developing an framework of objects would exceed the needs of the moment.
Learning OOA, OOD & OOP skills will benefit the most programmers, so it is definately useful for Universities to teach it.
The relevance and history of OOP runs back to the Simula languages back in the 1960s as a way to engineer software conceptually, where the developed code defines both the structure of the source and general permissible interactions with it. Obvious advantages are that a well-defined and well-created object is self-justifying and consistently repeatable as well as reliable; ideally also able to be extended and overridden.
The only time I know of that OOP is a 'bad approach' is during an embedded system programming efforts where resource availability is restricted; of course that's assuming your environment gives you access to them at all (as was already stated).
The title asks one question, and the post asks another. What do you want to know?
OOP is a major paradigm, and it gets major attention. If metaprogramming becomes huge, it will get more attention. Java and C# are two of the most used languages at the moment (see: SO tags by number of uses). I think it's ignorant to state either way that OOP is a great/terrible paradigm.
I think your question can best be summarized by the old adage: "When the hammer is your tool, everything looks like a nail."
OOP is usually an excellent approach, but it does come with a certain amount of overhead, at least conceptual. I don't do OO for small programs, for example. However, it's something you really do need to learn, so I can see requiring it for small programs in a University setting.
If I have to do serious planning, I'm going to use OOP. If not, I won't.
This is for the classes of problems I've been doing (which includes modeling, a few games, and a few random things). It may be different for other fields, but I don't have experience with them.
My opinion, freely offered, worth as much...
OOD/OOP is a tool. How good of a tool depends on the person using it, and how appropriate it is to use in a particular case depends on the problem. If I give you a saw, you'll know how to cut wood, but you won't necessarily be able to build a house.
The buzz that I'm picking up on is that functional programming is the wave of the future because it's extremely friendly to multi-threaded environments, so OO might be obsolete by the time you graduate. ;-)
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.
This is definitely subjective, but I'd like to try to avoid it becoming argumentative. I think it could be an interesting question if people treat it appropriately.
The idea for this question came from the comment thread from my answer to the "What are five things you hate about your favorite language?" question. I contended that classes in C# should be sealed by default - I won't put my reasoning in the question, but I might write a fuller explanation as an answer to this question. I was surprised at the heat of the discussion in the comments (25 comments currently).
So, what contentious opinions do you hold? I'd rather avoid the kind of thing which ends up being pretty religious with relatively little basis (e.g. brace placing) but examples might include things like "unit testing isn't actually terribly helpful" or "public fields are okay really". The important thing (to me, anyway) is that you've got reasons behind your opinions.
Please present your opinion and reasoning - I would encourage people to vote for opinions which are well-argued and interesting, whether or not you happen to agree with them.
Programmers who don't code in their spare time for fun will never become as good as those that do.
I think even the smartest and most talented people will never become truly good programmers unless they treat it as more than a job. Meaning that they do little projects on the side, or just mess with lots of different languages and ideas in their spare time.
(Note: I'm not saying good programmers do nothing else than programming, but they do more than program from 9 to 5)
The only "best practice" you should be using all the time is "Use Your Brain".
Too many people jumping on too many bandwagons and trying to force methods, patterns, frameworks etc onto things that don't warrant them. Just because something is new, or because someone respected has an opinion, doesn't mean it fits all :)
EDIT:
Just to clarify - I don't think people should ignore best practices, valued opinions etc. Just that people shouldn't just blindly jump on something without thinking about WHY this "thing" is so great, IS it applicable to what I'm doing, and WHAT benefits/drawbacks does it bring?
"Googling it" is okay!
Yes, I know it offends some people out there that their years of intense memorization and/or glorious stacks of programming books are starting to fall by the wayside to a resource that anyone can access within seconds, but you shouldn't hold that against people that use it.
Too often I hear googling answers to problems the result of criticism, and it really is without sense. First of all, it must be conceded that everyone needs materials to reference. You don't know everything and you will need to look things up. Conceding that, does it really matter where you got the information? Does it matter if you looked it up in a book, looked it up on Google, or heard it from a talking frog that you hallucinated? No. A right answer is a right answer.
What is important is that you understand the material, use it as the means to an end of a successful programming solution, and the client/your employer is happy with the results.
(although if you are getting answers from hallucinatory talking frogs, you should probably get some help all the same)
Most comments in code are in fact a pernicious form of code duplication.
We spend most of our time maintaining code written by others (or ourselves) and poor, incorrect, outdated, misleading comments must be near the top of the list of most annoying artifacts in code.
I think eventually many people just blank them out, especially those flowerbox monstrosities.
Much better to concentrate on making the code readable, refactoring as necessary, and minimising idioms and quirkiness.
On the other hand, many courses teach that comments are very nearly more important than the code itself, leading to the this next line adds one to invoiceTotal style of commenting.
XML is highly overrated
I think too many jump onto the XML bandwagon before using their brains...
XML for web stuff is great, as it's designed for it. Otherwise I think some problem definition and design thoughts should preempt any decision to use it.
My 5 cents
Not all programmers are created equal
Quite often managers think that DeveloperA == DeveloperB simply because they have same level of experience and so on. In actual fact, the performance of one developer can be 10x or even 100x that of another.
It's politically risky to talk about it, but sometimes I feel like pointing out that, even though several team members may appear to be of equal skill, it's not always the case. I have even seen cases where lead developers were 'beyond hope' and junior devs did all the actual work - I made sure they got the credit, though. :)
I fail to understand why people think that Java is absolutely the best "first" programming language to be taught in universities.
For one, I believe that first programming language should be such that it highlights the need to learn control flow and variables, not objects and syntax
For another, I believe that people who have not had experience in debugging memory leaks in C / C++ cannot fully appreciate what Java brings to the table.
Also the natural progression should be from "how can I do this" to "how can I find the library which does that" and not the other way round.
If you only know one language, no matter how well you know it, you're not a great programmer.
There seems to be an attitude that says once you're really good at C# or Java or whatever other language you started out learning then that's all you need. I don't believe it- every language I have ever learned has taught me something new about programming that I have been able to bring back into my work with all the others. I think that anyone who restricts themselves to one language will never be as good as they could be.
It also indicates to me a certain lack of inquistiveness and willingness to experiment that doesn't necessarily tally with the qualities I would expect to find in a really good programmer.
Performance does matter.
Print statements are a valid way to debug code
I believe it is perfectly fine to debug your code by littering it with System.out.println (or whatever print statement works for your language). Often, this can be quicker than debugging, and you can compare printed outputs against other runs of the app.
Just make sure to remove the print statements when you go to production (or better, turn them into logging statements)
Your job is to put yourself out of work.
When you're writing software for your employer, any software that you create is to be written in such a way that it can be picked up by any developer and understood with a minimal amount of effort. It is well designed, clearly and consistently written, formatted cleanly, documented where it needs to be, builds daily as expected, checked into the repository, and appropriately versioned.
If you get hit by a bus, laid off, fired, or walk off the job, your employer should be able to replace you on a moment's notice, and the next guy could step into your role, pick up your code and be up and running within a week tops. If he or she can't do that, then you've failed miserably.
Interestingly, I've found that having that goal has made me more valuable to my employers. The more I strive to be disposable, the more valuable I become to them.
1) The Business Apps farce:
I think that the whole "Enterprise" frameworks thing is smoke and mirrors. J2EE, .NET, the majority of the Apache frameworks and most abstractions to manage such things create far more complexity than they solve.
Take any regular Java or .NET ORM, or any supposedly modern MVC framework for either which does "magic" to solve tedious, simple tasks. You end up writing huge amounts of ugly XML boilerplate that is difficult to validate and write quickly. You have massive APIs where half of those are just to integrate the work of the other APIs, interfaces that are impossible to recycle, and abstract classes that are needed only to overcome the inflexibility of Java and C#. We simply don't need most of that.
How about all the different application servers with their own darned descriptor syntax, the overly complex database and groupware products?
The point of this is not that complexity==bad, it's that unnecessary complexity==bad. I've worked in massive enterprise installations where some of it was necessary, but even in most cases a few home-grown scripts and a simple web frontend is all that's needed to solve most use cases.
I'd try to replace all of these enterprisey apps with simple web frameworks, open source DBs, and trivial programming constructs.
2) The n-years-of-experience-required:
Unless you need a consultant or a technician to handle a specific issue related to an application, API or framework, then you don't really need someone with 5 years of experience in that application. What you need is a developer/admin who can read documentation, who has domain knowledge in whatever it is you're doing, and who can learn quickly. If you need to develop in some kind of language, a decent developer will pick it up in less than 2 months. If you need an administrator for X web server, in two days he should have read the man pages and newsgroups and be up to speed. Anything less and that person is not worth what he is paid.
3) The common "computer science" degree curriculum:
The majority of computer science and software engineering degrees are bull. If your first programming language is Java or C#, then you're doing something wrong. If you don't get several courses full of algebra and math, it's wrong. If you don't delve into functional programming, it's incomplete. If you can't apply loop invariants to a trivial for loop, you're not worth your salt as a supposed computer scientist. If you come out with experience in x and y languages and object orientation, it's full of s***. A real computer scientist sees a language in terms of the concepts and syntaxes it uses, and sees programming methodologies as one among many, and has such a good understanding of the underlying philosophies of both that picking new languages, design methods, or specification languages should be trivial.
Getters and Setters are Highly Overused
I've seen millions of people claiming that public fields are evil, so they make them private and provide getters and setters for all of them. I believe this is almost identical to making the fields public, maybe a bit different if you're using threads (but generally is not the case) or if your accessors have business/presentation logic (something 'strange' at least).
I'm not in favor of public fields, but against making a getter/setter (or Property) for everyone of them, and then claiming that doing that is encapsulation or information hiding... ha!
UPDATE:
This answer has raised some controversy in it's comments, so I'll try to clarify it a bit (I'll leave the original untouched since that is what many people upvoted).
First of all: anyone who uses public fields deserves jail time
Now, creating private fields and then using the IDE to automatically generate getters and setters for every one of them is nearly as bad as using public fields.
Many people think:
private fields + public accessors == encapsulation
I say (automatic or not) generation of getter/setter pair for your fields effectively goes against the so called encapsulation you are trying to achieve.
Lastly, let me quote Uncle Bob in this topic (taken from chapter 6 of "Clean Code"):
There is a reason that we keep our
variables private. We don't want
anyone else to depend on them. We want
the freedom to change their type or
implementation on a whim or an
impulse. Why, then, do so many
programmers automatically add getters
and setters to their objects, exposing
their private fields as if they were
public?
UML diagrams are highly overrated
Of course there are useful diagrams e.g. class diagram for the Composite Pattern, but many UML diagrams have absolutely no value.
Opinion: SQL is code. Treat it as such
That is, just like your C#, Java, or other favorite object/procedure language, develop a formatting style that is readable and maintainable.
I hate when I see sloppy free-formatted SQL code. If you scream when you see both styles of curly braces on a page, why or why don't you scream when you see free formatted SQL or SQL that obscures or obfuscates the JOIN condition?
Readability is the most important aspect of your code.
Even more so than correctness. If it's readable, it's easy to fix. It's also easy to optimize, easy to change, easy to understand. And hopefully other developers can learn something from it too.
If you're a developer, you should be able to write code
I did quite a bit of interviewing last year, and for my part of the interview I was supposed to test the way people thought, and how they implemented simple-to-moderate algorithms on a white board. I'd initially started out with questions like:
Given that Pi can be estimated using the function 4 * (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) with more terms giving greater accuracy, write a function that calculates Pi to an accuracy of 5 decimal places.
It's a problem that should make you think, but shouldn't be out of reach to a seasoned developer (it can be answered in about 10 lines of C#). However, many of our (supposedly pre-screened by the agency) candidates couldn't even begin to answer it, or even explain how they might go about answering it. So after a while I started asking simpler questions like:
Given the area of a circle is given by Pi times the radius squared, write a function to calculate the area of a circle.
Amazingly, more than half the candidates couldn't write this function in any language (I can read most popular languages so I let them use any language of their choice, including pseudo-code). We had "C# developers" who could not write this function in C#.
I was surprised by this. I had always thought that developers should be able to write code. It seems that, nowadays, this is a controversial opinion. Certainly it is amongst interview candidates!
Edit:
There's a lot of discussion in the comments about whether the first question is a good or bad one, and whether you should ask questions as complex as this in an interview. I'm not going to delve into this here (that's a whole new question) apart from to say you're largely missing the point of the post.
Yes, I said people couldn't make any headway with this, but the second question is trivial and many people couldn't make any headway with that one either! Anybody who calls themselves a developer should be able to write the answer to the second one in a few seconds without even thinking. And many can't.
The use of hungarian notation should be punished with death.
That should be controversial enough ;)
Design patterns are hurting good design more than they're helping it.
IMO software design, especially good software design is far too varied to be meaningfully captured in patterns, especially in the small number of patterns people can actually remember - and they're far too abstract for people to really remember more than a handful. So they're not helping much.
And on the other hand, far too many people become enamoured with the concept and try to apply patterns everywhere - usually, in the resulting code you can't find the actual design between all the (completely meaningless) Singletons and Abstract Factories.
Less code is better than more!
If the users say "that's it?", and your work remains invisible, it's done right. Glory can be found elsewhere.
PHP sucks ;-)
The proof is in the pudding.
Unit Testing won't help you write good code
The only reason to have Unit tests is to make sure that code that already works doesn't break. Writing tests first, or writing code to the tests is ridiculous. If you write to the tests before the code, you won't even know what the edge cases are. You could have code that passes the tests but still fails in unforeseen circumstances.
And furthermore, good developers will keep cohesion low, which will make the addition of new code unlikely to cause problems with existing stuff.
In fact, I'll generalize that even further,
Most "Best Practices" in Software Engineering are there to keep bad programmers from doing too much damage.
They're there to hand-hold bad developers and keep them from making dumbass mistakes. Of course, since most developers are bad, this is a good thing, but good developers should get a pass.
Write small methods. It seems that programmers love to write loooong methods where they do multiple different things.
I think that a method should be created wherever you can name one.
It's ok to write garbage code once in a while
Sometimes a quick and dirty piece of garbage code is all that is needed to fulfill a particular task. Patterns, ORMs, SRP, whatever... Throw up a Console or Web App, write some inline sql ( feels good ), and blast out the requirement.
Code == Design
I'm no fan of sophisticated UML diagrams and endless code documentation. In a high level language, your code should be readable and understandable as is. Complex documentation and diagrams aren't really any more user friendly.
Here's an article on the topic of Code as Design.
Software development is just a job
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy software development a lot. I've written a blog for the last few years on the subject. I've spent enough time on here to have >5000 reputation points. And I work in a start-up doing typically 60 hour weeks for much less money than I could get as a contractor because the team is fantastic and the work is interesting.
But in the grand scheme of things, it is just a job.
It ranks in importance below many things such as family, my girlfriend, friends, happiness etc., and below other things I'd rather be doing if I had an unlimited supply of cash such as riding motorbikes, sailing yachts, or snowboarding.
I think sometimes a lot of developers forget that developing is just something that allows us to have the more important things in life (and to have them by doing something we enjoy) rather than being the end goal in itself.
I also think there's nothing wrong with having binaries in source control.. if there is a good reason for it. If I have an assembly I don't have the source for, and might not necessarily be in the same place on each devs machine, then I will usually stick it in a "binaries" directory and reference it in a project using a relative path.
Quite a lot of people seem to think I should be burned at the stake for even mentioning "source control" and "binary" in the same sentence. I even know of places that have strict rules saying you can't add them.
Every developer should be familiar with the basic architecture of modern computers. This also applies to developers who target a virtual machine (maybe even more so, because they have been told time and time again that they don't need to worry themselves with memory management etc.)
Software Architects/Designers are Overrated
As a developer, I hate the idea of Software Architects. They are basically people that no longer code full time, read magazines and articles, and then tell you how to design software. Only people that actually write software full time for a living should be doing that. I don't care if you were the worlds best coder 5 years ago before you became an Architect, your opinion is useless to me.
How's that for controversial?
Edit (to clarify): I think most Software Architects make great Business Analysts (talking with customers, writing requirements, tests, etc), I simply think they have no place in designing software, high level or otherwise.
There is no "one size fits all" approach to development
I'm surprised that this is a controversial opinion, because it seems to me like common sense. However, there are many entries on popular blogs promoting the "one size fits all" approach to development so I think I may actually be in the minority.
Things I've seen being touted as the correct approach for any project - before any information is known about it - are things like the use of Test Driven Development (TDD), Domain Driven Design (DDD), Object-Relational Mapping (ORM), Agile (capital A), Object Orientation (OO), etc. etc. encompassing everything from methodologies to architectures to components. All with nice marketable acronyms, of course.
People even seem to go as far as putting badges on their blogs such as "I'm Test Driven" or similar, as if their strict adherence to a single approach whatever the details of the project project is actually a good thing.
It isn't.
Choosing the correct methodologies and architectures and components, etc., is something that should be done on a per-project basis, and depends not only on the type of project you're working on and its unique requirements, but also the size and ability of the team you're working with.
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.