Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I've studied and implemented design patterns for a few years now, and I'm wondering. What are some of the newer design patterns (since the GOF)? Also, what should one, similar to myself, study [in the way of software design] next?
Note: I've been using TDD, and UML for some time now. I'm curious about the newer paradigm shifts, and or newer design patterns.
There is roughly an infinite number of design patterns. Design patterns are just that: a recurrence of tricks programmers use to get things done. The most useful thing about the GoF patterns is how famous they are. In that, they have become a language -- exactly what the GoF hoped to achieve.
Many other patterns you'll find on the web and in literature are "just" useful tricks, not so much a language you can use when you speak to fellow programmers. That said, there is a number of patterns that arose in the past ten years or so, particularly in the realm of web development. See the patterns listed in Martin Fowler's patterns book.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Martin Fowler's book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. This is an outstanding book with dozens of patterns, many of which are used in modern ORM design (repository, active record), along with a number of UI layer patterns. Highly recommended.
I am an avid follower and supporter of the PCMEF (now PCBMER) framework
Here's a simpler overview of it.
It kind of understands that enterprise systems are huge an complex, and by combining a bunch of other design patterns together into the PCMBER framework (Presentation, Control, Mediator, Entity and Resource), even the most complex system remain easy to usnerstand and manage.
One of the newer ones that I found particularly useful is Domain Driven Design. Not so much a pattern in its own right, but more of a mindset - to concentrate on the domain objects - i.e. the things that you model and build the rest of application around it.
I found that it gave meaning to principles that we all knew before but were too lazy to deal with - like Single Responsibility Principle and Separation of Concerns. I take those two especially more seriously now.
Another axis of improvement for me was TDD and Dependency Injection. I have discovered that with lots of interfaces and classes implementing them I was able to let go of this fear of only defining something once. That is not to say that it is in conflict with DRY(Don't Repeat Yourself) much. It's OK to have two classes with the same properties if their purposes are different. Encapsulation and SRP are much more important than only defining a property once.
Umm...none of the things people have mentioned are design patterns.
GOF was written implicitly with Java in mind. It explored that space pretty well. However once you go into other languages some patterns are no longer necessary (Observer is rarely used in a language like C# that supports events) and some new ones spring forth. Grab yourself the Pro JavaScript Design Patterns or Design Patterns In Ruby books and see what happens to the stand-by pattens in these very different paradigms.
My favorites lately have come from leaning on the functional drift of modern languages. I'm a big fan of nested closures and of the functional ways of tackling some of the same problems that GoF does (again, see the Ruby book for great examples). I also am currently in love with the idea of internal domain-specific languages which open up into a whole series of design patterns of their own (including nested closures). Also event-aggregation seems to be poised to hit it big in the .Net world in the near future.
A couple other big ones that have hit the scene but aren't discussed as much in GoF - probably because they are more high level then what those guys were going for - are Inversion Of Control Containers, Message Bussing, Aspect-Oriented-Programming, Model-View-Controller, Model-View-Presenter, Model-View-ViewModel, and their ilk.
By the way, these are not design patterns, but if you're looking to progress beyond TDD start looking into Behavior-Driven-Development and Context/Specification.
A huge change from a maintenance aspect is the use of DVCS. If you don't know what one is or haven't used one, I highly suggest reading up on the two hard hitters:
Mercurial (hg): https://www.mercurial-scm.org/
git : http://git-scm.com/
They've done quite a bit to change the workflow of the common programming environment. Not really a pattern/design I spose, but I don't think TDD or UML are technical patterns/designs either at some level. Maybe more like common practices surrounding programming.
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
I am trying to get a couple team-members on to the OOP mindset, who currently think in terms of procedural programming.
However I am having a hard time putting into terms the "why" all this is good, and "why" they should want to benefit from it.
They use a different language than I do, and I am lacking the communication skills to explain this to them in a way that makes them "want" to learn the OOP way of doing things.
What are some good language independent books, articles, or arguments anyone can give or point to?
OOP is good for a multi-developer team because it easily allows abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. These are the big buzz words of OOP and they are the big buzz words for good reasons.
Abstraction: Allows other members of your team to use code that you write without having to understand the implementation details. This reduces the amount of necessary communication. Think of The Mythical Man Month wherein it is detailed that communication is one of the highest costs facing a development team.
Encapsulation: Allows you to change your implementation details without impacting users of your code. As such, it reduces code maintenance costs.
Inheritance: Allows your team to reuse and extend your implementations with reduced costs.
Polymorphism: Allows your team to use different implementations of a given abstraction. If your team is writing code to read and parse data from a Stream, because of polymorphism it can now work with FileStreams, MemoryStreams and PigeonStreams seamlessly and with significantly reduced costs.
OOP is not a holy grail. It is inappropriate for some teams because the costs of using it could be higher than the costs of not using it. For example, if you try to design for polymorphism but never have multiple implementations of a given abstraction then you have probably increased your costs.
Always give examples.
Take a bit of their code you think is bad. Re-write it to be better. Explain why it is better. Your colleagues will either agree or disagree.
Nobody uses (or should use) techniques because they're good techniques, they (should) use them because they produce good results. The advantages of very simple use of classes and objects are usually fairly easy to see, for instance when you have an array of objects with n properties instead of n arrays, one for each field you care about, and so on.
Comparing procedural to OOP, the biggest winner by far is encapsulation. OOP doesn't mean that you get encapsulation automatically, but the process of doing it is free compared with procedural code.
Abstraction helps manage the complexity of an application: only the information that's required is exposed.
There are many ways to go about this: OOP is not the only discipline to promote this strategy.
Of course, it is not because one claims to do OOP that one builds an application without abundant "abstraction leaks" thereby defeating the strategy...
I have a bit strange thought. I don't know but there probably some areas exist where OOP is unnecessary or even bad (very-very IMHO: javascript programming).
You and your team probably work in one of these areas. In other case you'd failed many years ago due to teams which use oop and all its benefits (like different frameworks, UML and so on) would simply do their job more efficiently.
I mean that if you still work well without oop then, maybe, just leave it.
The killer phrase: With OOP you can model the world "as it is" *cough*.
OOP didn't make sense to me until I was working on an application that connected to two different databases. I needed a function called getEmployeeName() for both databases. I decided to create two objects, one for each database, to encapsulate the functions that ran against each one (there were no functions that ran against both simultaneously). Not the epitomy of OOP, but a good start for me.
Most of my code is still procedural, but I'm more aware of situations where objects would make sense in my code. I'm not of the mindset that everything needs to be one way or the other.
Re-use of existing code through hierarchies.
The killer argument is IMHO that it takes much less time to re-design your code. Here is a similar question explaining why.
Having the ability to pass an entire object around that has a bunch of methods/functions you can call using that object. For example, let's say you have want to pass a message around you only need to pass one object and everyone who gets that object will have access to all it's functions.
Also, you can declare some objects' functions as public and some as private. There is also the concept of a friend function where only objects that are related through OO hierarchies have access to their friend's functions.
Objects help keep functions near the data they use and encapsulates it all into one entity that can be easily passed around.
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. ;-)
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I wonder what would be a good definition of term "over-engineering" as applied to software development. The expression seems to be used a lot during software design discussions often in conjunction with "excessive future-proofing" and it would be nice to nail down a more precise definition.
Contrary to most answers, I do not believe that "presently unneeded functionality" is over-engineering; or it is the least problematic form.
Like you said, the worst kind of over-engineering is usually committed in the name of future-proofing and extensibility - and achieves the exact opposite:
Empty layers of abstraction that are at best unnecessary and at worst restrict you to a narrow, inefficient use of the underlying API.
Code littered with designated "extension points" such as protected methods or components acquired via abstract factories - which all turn out to be not quite what you actually need when you do have to extend the functionality.
Making everything configurable to "avoid hard-coding", with the effect that there's more (complex, failure-prone) application logic in configuration files than in source code.
Over-genericizing: instead of implementing the (technically uninteresting) functional spec, the developer builds a (technically interesting) "business rule engine" that "executes" the specs themselves as supplied by business users. The net result is an interpreter for a proprietary (scripting or domain-specific) language that is usually horribly designed, has no tool support and is so hard to use that no business user could ever work with it.
The truth is that the design that is most easily adapted to new and changing requirements (and is thus the most future-proof and extensible) is the design that is as simple as possible.
Contrary to popular belief, over-engineering is really a phenomena that appears when engineers get "hubris" and think they understand the user.
I made a simple diagram to illustrate this:
In the cases where we've considered things over engineered, it's always been describing software that has been designed to be so generic that it loses sight of the main task that it was initially designed to perform, and has therefore become not only hard to use, but fundimentally unintelligent.
To me, over-engineering is including anything that you don't need and that you don't know you're going to need. If you catch yourself saying that a feature might be nice if the requirements change in a certain way, then you might be over-engineering. Basically, over-engineering is violating YAGNI.
The agile answer to this question is: every piece of code that does not contribute to the requested functionality.
There is this discussion at Joel on Software that starts with,
creating extensive class hierarchies for an imagined future problem that does not yet exist, is a kind of over-engineering, and is therefore, bad.
And, gets into a discussion with examples.
If you spend so much time thinking about the possible ramifications of a problem that you end up interfering with the solving of the problem itself, you may be over-engineering.
There's a fine balance between "best engineering practices" and "real world applicability". At some point you have to decide that even though a particular solution may not be as "pure" from an engineering standpoint as it could be, it will do the job.
For example:
If you are designing a user management system for one-time use at a high school reunion, you probably don't need to add support for incredibly long names, or funky character sets. Setting a reasonable maximum length and doing some basic sanitizing should be sufficient. On the other hand, if you're creating a system that will be deployed for hundreds of similar events, you might want to spend some more time on the problem.
It's all about the appropriate level of effort for the task at hand.
I'm afraid that a precise definition is probably not possible as it's highly dependent on the context. For example, it's much easier to over-engineer a web site that displays glittering ponies than it is a nuclear power plant control system. Redundancies, excessive error checking, highly instrumented logging facilities are all over-engineering for a glittering ponies app, but not for a nuclear power plant control system. I think the best you can do is have a feeling about when you are applying too much overhead to your features for the purpose of the application.
Note that I would distinguish between gold-plating and over-engineering. In my mind, gold-plating is creating features that weren't asked for and will never be used. Over-engineering is more about how much "safety" you build into the application either by coding checks around the code or using excessive design for a simple task.
This relates to my controversial programming opinion of "The simplest approach is always the best approach".
Quoting from here: "...Implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them."
To me it is anything that would add any more fat to the code. Meat would be any code that will do the job according to the spec and fat would be any code that would bloat the code in a way that it just adds more complexity. The programmer might have been expecting a future expansion of the functionality; but still it is fat.!
My rough definition would be 'Providing functionality that isnt needed to meet the requirements spec'
I think they are the same as Gold plating and being hit by the Golden hammer :)
Basically, you can sit down and spent too much time trying to make a perfect design, without ever writing some code to check out how it works. Any agile method will tell you not to do all your design up-front, and to just create chunks of design, implement it, reiterate over it, re-design, go again, etc...
Over-engeneering means architecting and designing the applcation with more components than it really should have according to the requirements list.
There is a big difference between over-engeneering and creating an extensible applcaiton, that can be upgraded as reqirements change. If I can think of an example i'll edit the post.
Over-engineering is simply creating a product with greater functionality, quality, generality, extensibility, documentation, or any other aspect than is required.
Of course, you may have requirements outside a specific project -- for example, if you forsee doing future similar applications, then you might have additional requirements for extendability, dependent on cost, that you add on to the project specific requirements.
When your design actually makes things more complex instead of simplifying things, you’re overengineering.
More on this at:
http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/what-is-overengineering/
Disclaimer #1: I am a big-picture BA. I know no code. I read this site all the time. This is my first post.
Funny I was just told by my boss that I over-engineered a new software produce we're planning for mentoring (target market HR people). So I came here to look up the term.
They want to get something in place to sell now, re-purposing existing tools. I can't help but sit back and think, fewer signups, lower retention, if it doesn't allow some of the flexibility we talked about. And mainly, have a highly visual UI that a monkey could use.
He said we could plan future phases to improve the product, especially the UI. We have current customers waiting on "future improvements" that we still aren't doing. They need it though, truly need it.
I am in the process of resigning so I didn't push back.
But my definition would be.............making sure it only does as little as possible, for as cheap as possible, and still be passable for the thing you say it is. Beyond that is over engineering.
Disclaimer #2: This site helped me land my next job implementing a more configurable software.
I think the best answers to your question can be found in this other qestion
The beauty of Agile programming is that it's hard to over engineer if you do it right.
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.