Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much

Re: Re: Re: OO 2 death?

by Rhose (Priest)
on Dec 07, 2001 at 18:55 UTC ( #130197=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Re: OO 2 death?
in thread OO 2 death?

Thank you Fastolfe.

I just found this thread and started reading the replies. I find it hard to believe that most people just assume there is no other motive behind this assignment. While it is very possible that the constraints placed on the project are just plain silly, there is also a reasonable chance that there are other lessons being taught.

I have a close, talented friend who flunked out of Carnegie Mellon because he felt he could improve his projects and that his CS profs were "silly" with some of their assignments.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OO 2 death?
by bmcatt (Friar) on Dec 07, 2001 at 19:08 UTC
    However... It's been quite a while since I've been in school, but one of the things that teachers should be teaching is at least the process of determining what the best solution is to a problem.

    It's entirely possible that the assignment was given to force the students to work with OO. But in that case, pick a problem that matches to an OO implementation and don't force busy work on a student just because that's what the lesson plan says.

    Now, I'm not saying that there aren't equally silly constraints out in The Real World™. However, those tend to be a different set of silly constraints from school. For example, it's entirely possible (in TRW) to be told that you have to use a particular language or environment because that's what the entire organization is using (or whatever). But "Do it in OO" is rarely one of the real-world constraints. "Make it reusable" may be, but OO-ness, in and of itself, rarely is.

    I'd be curious to hear back from the teacher in this instance as to why they put that set of contraints on the student / developer. That may be more instructive than anything else.

      I have certainly seen "use OO" be a real-world constraint. That part was not what I thought was stupid. I can accept that an example to teach people how to use the OO mechanics had better be a problem they can understand easily with or without it. Particularly since a bit of blind flailing with OO can turn the simplest of problems into a mess.

      No, that wasn't what put me off. What put me off was restrictions like the ones described at Re: Re: OO 2 death?. A series of restrictions that struck me as seriously counter-productive. Is advice like, "Modules no more than 1.5 pages" or advice like, "Days of the week need to be separated for maintainability" any good? Not as far as I can see...

      That said, were I this highschool student, dealing with those restrictions, I would have chosen to program in Ruby. Why? Because Ruby's OO has fewer "moving parts" than Perl's does, making it somewhat more compact. Also the syntax looks cleaner to the uninitiated, which probably will go over better with a teacher who doesn't know the language...

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://130197]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (3)
As of 2019-08-24 01:09 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found