Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re: I dislike object-oriented programming in general

by doom (Deacon)
on Oct 20, 2007 at 19:52 UTC ( #646210=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to I dislike object-oriented programming in general

A few corrections:

I don't think the right phrase is "anthropomorphic terminology", I think what you're really complaining about is the over-use of "metaphors" as the only way of understanding an abstraction. There are people who still think that "identify the nouns" is a good principle in OOP design, but that's kind of silly. If you look at the typical "objects" we really use, they tend to be totally made-up entities like "database handles" and "statement handles" and so on.

Some of the things you're complaining about are already understood to be problems within the OOP crowd: it's understood that you should avoid over-reliance on inheritence. Slogans recommending "aggregation over inheritence" are pretty common (as is the point that "inheritence breaks encapsulation").

A few comments:

Myself, I tentatively suggest that inheritence should usually be reserved for fixing problems in the original design. You should code to allow sub-classing, but find other ways to share common code.

An "object class" should just be thought of as a bunch of routines that need to share some data. There are a lot of ways of doing that (e.g. closures) and I largely just use OOP because I think it's familiar to more people, i.e. I use OOP for social reasons more so than technical reasons.

However there is a technical advantage of OOP: the ability to generate multiple "objects" (i.e. data namespaces) all of the same "class" (i.e. using the same method namespace [1]) within a single perl process. (But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "functional" programming world has it's own way of doing this).

I don't think that OOP is tremendously useful for polymorphism, by the way, I think plug-in architectures work better, (ala DBI/DBD).

[1] Looking at this again, I see I'm oversimplifying by ignoring class data... I almost never use class data, myself.


Comment on Re: I dislike object-oriented programming in general
Select or Download Code
Re^2: I dislike object-oriented programming in general
by w-ber (Hermit) on Oct 23, 2007 at 17:08 UTC

    I tentatively suggest that inheritence should usually be reserved for fixing problems in the original design.

    Well, the first project in my current job was adding features a semi-complex web application -- written in PHP. The previous developer, no doubt a good programmer otherwise, apparently felt too energetic, i.e. not lazy enough, when he wrote the original source files, because there is considerable overlap in functionality. Quite often this is because he used copy-paste to implement features on pages that lacked them. Needless to say, when I was asked to change the way some summary fields in reports are computed, I had to first manually read through all files and discover the five or six places where the same copy-pasted computation took place.

    Now, the job is nice, and I've actually had fun refactoring this. My very first inclination was to abstract the common code to functions, then pass these functions around, akin to higher-level programming. However, although PHP supports lambda expressions through eval, this quickly turned out to be infeasible. Instead, I implemented a couple of shallow class hierarchies and abstracted most common functionality to (abstract) base classes. It's not beautiful or elegant, but it is much cleaner than the original -- plus adding new features is considerably easier now.

    Arguably this is not refactoring the design that much; just implementing the design in a bit better way. However, it's a good example where knowing object-oriented programming (inheritance too!) saved the day.

    --
    print "Just Another Perl Adept\n";

      This does sound like an example of using inheritence to fix someone else's design, but I was actually thinking about using it in the other direction: if there's some code that doesn't quite do what you need, it's sometimes very convienient to create a mutant variant by subclassing it... but if the original author was inheritence happy, you find yourself dealing with unwieldly chains of subclasses of subclasses where in order to understand what the class at the bottom does, you need to learn about all the parents all the way up the chain.

      In your example, it sounds like I probably would've used "aggregation", i.e. move the common operations to methods in a new class, where the original code needs to create a "calculator handler object" (or somesuch) to access them. The advantage is that the new code is much more independant of the existing code (it has real "encapsulation").

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://646210]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-02 10:03 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Who would be the most fun to work for?















    Results (55 votes), past polls