Life on the bench: in my dressing gown

[DieScum]

I think the main reason for the object oriented approach is the growth in complexity of and number of people involved in software projects. You need modularity so that code can be developed by different teams and then fit together.

[RichardCranium]

I think the main reason for the object oriented approach is the growth in complexity of and number of people involved in software projects. You need modularity so that code can be developed by different teams and then fit together.

That was also achievable successfully using structured programming techniques. At my first job, a software house, we (loosely) used top down design and when predictably re-usable components were met we used bottom up programming to produce libraries. Libraries were documented 'black boxes' containing I/O management, definitions, standard formulae and anything else that relates to the 'thing' being coded.

I suppose I can see the use of OO in SAP or Oracle where there are shedloads of modules with common components and a product that will evolve over time, but quite what the point is in a small team writing a bespoke system, I cannot see. There is little re-use and communication is not an issue; just make sure the code is sensibly structured and self-documenting.

[newblood]

Funny, innit. Functional makes sense to me: just tell the computer what it is to do.

But I cannot get the object oriented paradigm to fit inside my head: it just won't plug in anywhere. It does not feel logical. It doesn't make sense. I look at code written that way and it doesn't talk to me.

I have read plenty of books and articles on it for over 15 years, but I just don't get it. I cannot see the philosophy behind it, and have yet to find some words that can explain it.

I've seen plenty of words on "how to do it", and rather weak arguments on why it is better (I am not in the least convinced) but none that explain the underlying "why it is how it is".


"The Astra instance of the car object has an attribute of steering which has a method of turning and its value is to be left." Just turn left, FFS!

Is this a joke ?

Object oriented programming hides complexity of underlying boxes / components which do all sorts of codes that a progrmmer does not have to write each time but can rather reuse each time.

Am I up for this development thing ?

[suityou01]

That was also achievable successfully using structured programming techniques. At my first job, a software house, we (loosely) used top down design and when predictably re-usable components were met we used bottom up programming to produce libraries. Libraries were documented 'black boxes' containing I/O management, definitions, standard formulae and anything else that relates to the 'thing' being coded.

I suppose I can see the use of OO in SAP or Oracle where there are shedloads of modules with common components and a product that will evolve over time, but quite what the point is in a small team writing a bespoke system, I cannot see. There is little re-use and communication is not an issue; just make sure the code is sensibly structured and self-documenting.

The answer (as always) lies in food.

Structured programming worked until programs became to big to manage. This was known as spaghetti code. Hence the shift from C to C++, structured to OOD. So instead of spaghetti code, it's now ravioli code.

Then came along N-Tier, which puts your objects into layers (or tiers) so now you have lasagne code.

Or more accurately, lasagne and ravioli code.

Mmmmmm, hungry now.

HTH

[shoes]

I cannot see the philosophy behind it, and have yet to find some words that can explain it.

It hides the layers of badly written inefficient junk beneath what you are doing so you're not too horrified by it all.

[alreadypacked]

It hides the layers of badly written inefficient junk beneath what you are doing so you're not too horrified by it all.

I wish sometime it was locked way with no key, rather than hidded.

Some days I feel brave and try to fix it

[zeitghost]

Well, the whole point of the CLI around which .NET is built was to allow multiple language implementations. Given that there's a lot of legacy COBOL code around, it's not surprising that there's a CLI-based implementation.

There are a great number of languages implemented around the CLI, including such delights as Scheme, Haskell, FORTRAN, Oberon, and of course LISP

APL?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Old programmers never die, they just recurse.

Really old programmers are re-entrant

[zeitghost]

APL?

Does anyone still have that special golf ball for the printer?

[zeitghost]

I, also, have failed to transfer to the object oriented paradigm.

My paradigm shifter blew a fuse.

Ho Hum.

Then again, there's not much object orientation in assembler programming.

Or structure for that matter.

fred: GOTO fred