OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
prog21.dadgum.com
OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#2So true. I'm glad that non-OOP is finally getting mainstream traction (again).
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#3> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from.
You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this?
It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing around dictionaries of dictionaries and lists. It's more difficult to test. I'm not saying everything needs to be a class, they're a nice tool to have in your toolbox. Use when needed.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#4> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from. You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this? It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing a…
Really depends on the kind of programming.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#5> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from. You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this? It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing a…
> I'm not saying everything needs to be a class, they're a nice tool to have in your toolbox. Use when needed.
That's exactly what he said.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#6> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from. You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this? It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing a…
Take it down a notch. This is a blog post about modern programming, not a tech interview.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#7> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from. You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this? It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing a…
> I'm not saying everything needs to be a class, they're a nice tool to have in your toolbox. Use when needed. That's exactly what he said.
It sounds like they would differ on which circumstances would justify OOP.
FWIW, I agree with both. Use when needed but you need to understand the abstraction layers that high level languages bring you and when to not use them. And why.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#8> I use lists and strings and arrays with no concern about how many elements they contain or where the memory comes from. You should worry. If you don't want your server or your app to run slow, you should worry about these things. Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this? It's pretty difficult to implement reliable, readable and proven design patterns if you're just passing a…
Can you imagine going into a programming interview and saying something like this?
Depends what the job is for. Honestly, 90% of the web sites being made out there work just find with dictionaries and lists. It's a reality of the times that the largest employment market is for relatively simple code right now.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#9Well, most OOP isn't object oriented at all, it's class oriented or maybe another way to look at it is that most of the time OOP is used as containers for data and function, not for things.
For example, say you have an object that holds some strings and numbers and it has getters and setters on it. How is that different than a Hash? Is that object oriented? If you add a couple helper methods to said object is it more OOP if you still are using getters and setters?
There is a fundamental difference between treating OOP as a bunch of classes that contain basically procedural code vs treating them as objects that are things that do things.
Treated the way it often is, OOP is not that useful for anything other than namespacing and creating ridiculous hierarchy structures just because "it's oop" and inheritance lets humans do what they love to do - name and categorize things.
If you treat objects in OOP as "things", I think it is more useful and interesting than treating objects as containers. Either way, not all code needs to be OOP at all.
Re: OOP Isn't a Fundamental Particle of Computing
#10OOP has never been just about computing. It's strength is that it allows the business rules to be most directly mapped to the code that needs to be written. When both parts of this process are performed by the same person it loses much of it's value (until the problem gets larger and you need more than one person). As we have better computing tools in modern languages it is more often the same person. It has never been considered more efficient or easier for the programmer alone, just the whole problem solving process in general, especially in teams.