Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
I thought you wanted to mention GUIs ...
Anyway, that's why I love multi-paradigm languages such as C++. You can pretty much use whatever is best for your specific problem domain.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
I thought you wanted to mention GUIs ...
Anyway, that's why I love multi-paradigm languages such as C++. You can pretty much use whatever is best for your specific problem domain.
I think I did somewhere, didn't I?
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Nope, I think you forgot.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
It's a short, sweet, two liner. But it's certainly there :)
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Whoa, indeed! Well hidden.
I don't understand why you think that OO prevents change (and what kinds of change you mean) and what advantages other paradigms have in this area.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Whoa, indeed! Well hidden.
I don't understand why you think that OO prevents change (and what kinds of change you mean) and what advantages other paradigms have in this area.
Well, I meant this as a prelude to other discussions. But to be fair it's turned out ot be a vastly simplified overview. I can publish an analysis if you'd like but it'd be terse and essentially unreadable. Treat this as an introduction to what will eventually become the longest unpublished book in history :lol:
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
I'm having trouble envisioning the "solution"....
I think OO has it's place... mostly in design.... and it has it's use in development.... but it's not the Holy Grail. That would be what ever design/technique fits the situation. In some cases OO makes sense, in some cases it doesn't.
In practice, I've adopted a 50% OO level. Mostly when it comes to my data sinks. But one thing my objects DON'T do is access the datastore (database). They are actionless. It's all properties, and maybe one or two methods (like a Clear). All of my Loads, Saves, Deletes are done in a data access class else where.
One thing I haven't decided on, and usualy changes on a case-by-case issue is if a Contact object has multiple Addresses, if it Addresses should be a collection of Address in the Contact object (Contact.Addresses("Home").Address1), or if it should be it's own separate entity (Addresses("Home").Address1). Since I'm only ever dealing with one contact at any given time, it seems almost a no brainer to make them (addresses) their own collection outside of the Contact object. -shrug-
-tg
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
One thing I haven't decided on, and usualy changes on a case-by-case issue is if a Contact object has multiple Addresses, if it Addresses should be a collection of Address in the Contact object (Contact.Addresses("Home").Address1), or if it should be it's own separate entity (Addresses("Home").Address1). Since I'm only ever dealing with one contact at any given time, it seems almost a no brainer to make them (addresses) their own collection outside of the Contact object. -shrug-
-tg
Why can't it be both? :confused:
To yrwyddfa. Well put! This is a very common problem if the original architect does not know what he is doing or the app is written based on a constantly changing busisness model.
Quote:
I think that a lot of OO proponents are intelligent and articulate. Most of the ones I’ve met and worked with certainly are: to be an effective OO practitioner you need to be! It’s a shame that the vast majority of them do not stick around to suffer the consequences of change after the 2nd and 3rd development cycle. Anyone who’s been in the industry for more than five minutes will know that after change cycle 3, it’s time for a re-write with OO code. The code has become unmaintainable, and there’s no one left who really understood what the original design has become. The 3rd cycle normally comes in around year 5, which harks back to that wonderful marketing cycle the big companies adhere too.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
I don't care which paradigm is used, if it gets to a certain size it is unreadable.
Some of my responses to Pt2 could have been left out in light of pt3. Species is not a great biological model, but it IS a great biological modeling model.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Unmaintainablity is a good point but my simple answer to that would be that you should have designed it better in the first place. then you would be able to accomodate changes. Although, sometimes it is a bit of a stretch.
As for your point about Notepad, I can spew out PHP without any IDEs (I don't like IDEs) but for things like .NET class libraries I haven't got the time or patience to learn where everything is. I can't do it without the Object Browser or the little autocomplete menus.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Unmaintainablity is a good point but my simple answer to that would be that you should have designed it better in the first place.
A situation that will only be verified when change requests come in after you've already released the software
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
My point was that this will still be spaghetti unless you have documented the program. Perhaps it is different for all of you, but if I don't have notes on the logic of something, it doesn't really matter whether it is OO or procedural, after some length of time, I have forgotten how it works. Any change is as painful as any other at that point.
On the other hand, I have never made an object tree, and I, too, don't like that design style. I have almost never inherited one class from a different class (except for one biological model where it made sense, and one Excel App wrapper where I was lazy). That avoids brittle base classes and other pitfalls. I suppose it also avoids much of OO philosophy, but even MS uses only what they term a 'rational subset'.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
i posted this in OO too, then i realized that it hadn't been posted on forlike..ever..so i am quoting what i said here
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyer
all problems can be solved by my ideology/religion/awsomenesss....
- i believe in DOS.
Now all i have left is to force that particular belief/religion/ideology/awsomeness onto every1 else thru some amish terrorist group.
*this is where i get afraid that somebody thinks im serious and gets the FBI to come to my house*
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Talk about digging in the dirt!!
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Talk about the arrogance of spamming one ancient thread and then acting as if it was a worthwhile contribution that needs to be in the equally ancient follow-up thread.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Talk about the arrogance of spamming one ancient thread and then acting as if it was a worthwhile contribution that needs to be in the equally ancient follow-up thread.
How quaint and amusing
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
it was a worthwhile idea. it can solve all the world's problems as long as it doesn't run into a stack overflow.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
This thread is over a year old. Unless you have something constructive and non chit-chatty to post, please let it die (again).
Thank you.
Re: Object Orientation Pt 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
This thread is over a year old. Unless you have something constructive and non chit-chatty to post, please let it die (again).
Thank you.
Since when did you become an over-bearing moderator? And my code is still faster than yours ;)