I'm over OO.

[penagate]

Seriously, I'm sick of it.

I don't understand modern programming's obsession with object-orientation. For goodness' sake, not everything is an object, so why treat everything like one? It's so unnecessarily constraining. Programming is about algorithms and using them to manipulate data. Sure, you may throw objects in the mix as well if you want, but I wish people would stop trying to twist every concept to fit the OOD model. Language designers should focus on implementing real life principles instead of trying to reinvent them.

Even worse is when people start trying to force everything not only into objects but into design patterns. (Java is a torturous example of this.) I feel that programming languages are becoming less intuitive for their users and more and more simply for computer science students to write lengthy, vacuous, and yet seemingly profound essays about.

Object-oriented languages are an annoying fad and are not the future.

(*Dons flame-retardant suit*)

[penagate]

timeshifter, that's more of a rant than your effort.

[timeshifter]

It's all about the flame-retardant suit. If I'd rememberd to don that, mine would have been superior.

[MasterBlaster]

Seriously, I'm sick of it.

I don't understand modern programming's obsession with object-orientation. For goodness' sake, not everything is an object, so why treat everything like one?

Everything is an object. I do agree that some people have taken it way too far and defeated the purpose of oop design. Especially college professors who couldn't hack it in the real world. For some reason writing unusually confusing code to spit hello world out to a console makes them feel better about the fact that they aren't getting paid sheit.

A nice logical OOP design makes it eaiser to split tasks off to different developers with different skillsets. For example, It's a lot eaiser for a noob to do type something like Account.Balance than write a routine that calculates an account balance.

[timeshifter]

Array.Sort is one of my favorites... granted, a good binary sort is only 13 lines of code in VB6, regardless of how many entries the array has... but Array.Sort is easier and a hell of a lot faster.

[penagate]

A nice logical OOP design makes it eaiser to split tasks off to different developers with different skillsets. For example, It's a lot eaiser for a noob to do type something like Account.Balance than write a routine that calculates an account balance.

I agree, but that's modularisation (and namespacing); attributes that come with OO, but are not restricted to it. You can make efficient non-object-oriented designs.

Array.Sort is one of my favorites... granted, a good binary sort is only 13 lines of code in VB6, regardless of how many entries the array has... but Array.Sort is easier and a hell of a lot faster.

Again, a virtue of the library, not the paradigm.

[litlewiki]

I think it's the intellisense that drives them.

[gtilles]

dim objPenagate as vbForumUser

objPenagate.isOverOOP=true

[timeshifter]

Wow.. you are not OOP.

Dim Penagate As New vbForumsMember

Penagate.isOverOOP = True

Penagate.Banned = True

[MasterBlaster]

I agree, but that's modularisation (and namespacing); attributes that come with OO, but are not restricted to it. You can make efficient non-object-oriented designs.

I was just listing an attribute that I liked about oop. I can add to that list if you'd like.

[timeshifter]

From what I've gleaned of VB2005 in my limited time working with it, it behaves like VB6 but looks like a more traditional OOP IDE. I like it.. the code is more precise and efficient, but I can program it similarly to how I code VB6.

[penagate]

I was just listing an attribute that I liked about oop. I can add to that list if you'd like.

Well there are a lot of things I like about it [OO] too. It's people's insistence on using it everywhere, including where inappropriate, that annoys me.

[timeshifter]

Learn ASP.

[wossname]

Penagate, I do have a great deal of respect for your technical skills but I cannot help feel a little disappointed by your outburst.

However, I realise that you are under a lot of stress what with uni work and everything so I think we can all put this down to exhaustion or a weather balloon or something.

In light of this I think we should each light a candle and pray for Penagate's soul at this time of emotional upheaval.

[timeshifter]

Can I light a firecracker instead?

[wossname]

Although I agree that there is a time and a place for OO and non-OO. Don't let those who would impart their doctrines upon you deter you from the holy path of OOP with their poison gospel. Follow thine own path, Grasshopper.

[wossname]

Can I light a firecracker instead?

Yeah fine whatever keeps you quiet.

[timeshifter]

[quiet]

Why am I being quiet?

[/quiet]

[Fromethius]

I kinda agree with penegate. I know my post number and my.. programming skills.. may be a bit.. low. But still, when I am looking on codeproject and other sites like that and I see like 10 overloaded classes each with one line, each saying get and set something, and then you realize you can do all of this with ONE method and around 5 lines of code. I don't really know if this pertains to what we're talking about, but still. It's supposed to make your code more organized, in my mind, it just makes it more confusing! You can rather use one method, and examine each line and see what it does, rather than reading all these overloads and seeing, well this goes to that, that goes back, that goes there and then that can be either this or that.. well.. it's just something confusing

[timeshifter]

The overloads are to force parameters to behave how you want them. An overloadable function will tell you its' default values. You are in no way required to use overloads.

[MasterBlaster]

The overloads are to force parameters to behave how you want them. An overloadable function will tell you its' default values. You are in no way required to use overloads.

As well as throw a build error every where that function or constructor is called if you change the parameters. This comes in very handy if you are working on a huge system. Especially in constructors.

[timeshifter]

I'm sorry, did I leave that part out? My bad.

[MasterBlaster]

I'm sorry, did I leave that part out? My bad.

What the hell. You're off your game today man.

[timeshifter]

What he actually meant in that rant was, "Java sucks".




But please, keep the discussion going.

[drunkenmonkey]

Seriously, I'm sick of it.

I don't understand modern programming's obsession with object-orientation. For goodness' sake, not everything is an object, so why treat everything like one? It's so unnecessarily constraining. Programming is about algorithms and using them to manipulate data. Sure, you may throw objects in the mix as well if you want, but I wish people would stop trying to twist every concept to fit the OOD model. Language designers should focus on implementing real life principles instead of trying to reinvent them.

Even worse is when people start trying to force everything not only into objects but into design patterns. (Java is a torturous example of this.) I feel that programming languages are becoming less intuitive for their users and more and more simply for computer science students to write lengthy, vacuous, and yet seemingly profound essays about.

Object-oriented languages are an annoying fad and are not the future.

(*Dons flame-retardant suit*)

You know you can make a boat using hand tools or you can join the 21st century (well in this case the 20th century) and use a few power tools where warranted to make the process go smoother and quicker. Not to mention easier for later upgrades and maintenance.
And please GAWD tell me that by Java you are not meaning JavaScript?!?
I know it's difficult changing you're thinking to use OO when you're used to procedural programming but studies show that it is much more efficient.
Granted not everything deserves OO treatment, there is always going to be a place for C code.

[MasterBlaster]

What he actually meant in that rant was, "Java sucks".




But please, keep the discussion going.

Java still sucks? No way, didn't JR date her once upon a time?

[drunkenmonkey]

You can make efficient non-object-oriented designs.

I'm sorry I'm new here, but is this meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

[moeur]

well said penagate

try debugging someone's code who got carried away with OOP. You have to navigate through a huge tree of methods that each contain only one or two lines of code because objects are created to do every task.

[timeshifter]

I create new public functions and subs for the most common reason of it's used in more than one place. For instance, in one of my current projects, I've got a function that builds a title for the current page based on its' location in the web.sitemap file. It needs to be in every master page... which right now means four different places. I hate redundant code, so I put it in the common.vb file and reference it with one line from each master page. Works like a charm, too. I might just put it up in the code bank, it's so brilliant...

[penagate]

You know you can make a boat using hand tools or you can join the 21st century (well in this case the 20th century) and use a few power tools where warranted to make the process go smoother and quicker. Not to mention easier for later upgrades and maintenance.
And please GAWD tell me that by Java you are not meaning JavaScript?!?
I know it's difficult changing you're thinking to use OO when you're used to procedural programming but studies show that it is much more efficient.
Granted not everything deserves OO treatment, there is always going to be a place for C code.

I am not advocating the use of primitive tools. Merely, I am pointing out that OOP is not the be-all end-all solution to every programming problem under the sun, as its proponents would have you believe. I have nothing against the concept of objects, but designing a whole system to be objects is pointless and unnecessary. It's bureaucratic design. You can easily end up spending more time architecting class relationships than you do actually focusing on code flow and algorithms. And it's also rigid design. Heaven forbid you make a mistake in your initial class relationship chart, or you have to go back and move a whole bunch of code around because class A now needs to inherit from class C instead of B and so method X needs to be replaced with method Y or B::Z is now C::Z and so on. Dropping reusable objects into code is a beautiful thing. Designing a fully object-oriented application is not.

One of the key principles of OOP is encapsulation. Objects are supposed to be able to deal with things by themselves. But what happens when they can't? You've hidden everything away so the object's useless beyond its stated capabilities. Instead of letting programmers deal with problems, OOP shoves them under the rug of encapsulation.

Objects also couple data and functions. This is usually undesirable. We spend a lot of time trying to separate data, algorithms, and presentation. Yet OOP objects couple these together like a ball of Play-Dough.

I am also disgusted by over-abstraction and the propensity of bad OOP programmers to abstract beyond necessity. Abstraction is evil! The more implementation details you hide, the less certainty you have when using code. Sure, it works. But what's the cost? What are the possible side effects? And the more abstraction layers you pile on, the more danger you have of the abstraction collapsing and rendering itself useless [see Joel Sporsky's Law of Leaky Abstractions]. There is a sweet spot between no abstraction and over abstraction.

The same applies to inheritance. Inheritance can be a powerful tool in the right hands. When used with abandon, it wrecks the cohesiveness and maintainability of a system. You will run around for hours up and down inheritance chains looking for that bit of code that's causing a bug that once fixed will cause you to run up and down another inheritance chain looking for another bug.

OOP does nothing but encourage, and in many cases force, programmers to employ facilities such as these which only the best programmers are capable of using wisely; madness ensues. Two years ago I didn't know what it was. Now, after both having used it and having it continually shoved down my throat as the best thing since the proverbial sliced bread, I'm thoroughly sick of it.

(P.S.: I am appreciative of the subtle differences between Java and JavaScript. One is a rigid object-oriented language while the other is a more free-form procedural/object-oriented language. I actually like JavaScript (although I don't enjoy client-side web programming much), but Java is horribly stifling.)


Edit: Moved from Chit Chat.

[MasterBlaster]

So what you're really saying is you hate krappy OOP designs. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

[penagate]

Yes, but I'm also saying that I hate the restrictiveness of OOP that forces people to make, or feel as though they should make, said krappy designs.

I strongly believe that in a decade OOP will no longer be employed in mainstream new development.

[RhinoBull]

You know you can make a boat using hand tools or you can join the 21st century (well in this case the 20th century) ...

Although OOP was not commonly used it was originated more than 40 (!) years ago. 21st century, eh ?

...I know it's difficult changing you're thinking to use OO when you're used to procedural programming but studies show that it is much more efficient...

Procedural language is synonymous for faster (much more faster) processing.

[RhinoBull]

...I strongly believe that in a decade OOP will no longer be employed in mainstream new development.

I sincerely hope so but somehow don't believe it's going to happen - with .Net MS does nothing but promoting what was once almost forgotten.
(if that makes sense to anyone...)

[Valleysboy1978]

Penagate leaves O-O?? Oh dear lord no!

[drunkenmonkey]

Although OOP was not commonly used it was originated more than 40 (!) years ago. 21st century, eh ?

thus the use of (well in this case the 20th century)


and Pen, the seemingly pointlessness of architecting first vs just jumping in and coding is a trap that quite a few programmers fall into.
You are correct you can go to far with OO architecture, however if the project is planned out and you use incremental steps i.e. use case, design, meet with domain experts, code a mode, in two weeks then meet and reflect and make necessary changes; I've found it to be far more productive.

Some things do not need this though you are right, sometimes all you need is a script to get the job done.
We're really comparing apples to oranges here.

[MasterBlaster]

Yes, but I'm also saying that I hate the restrictiveness of OOP that forces people to make, or feel as though they should make, said krappy designs.

I strongly believe that in a decade OOP will no longer be employed in mainstream new development.

That's on architect and dev team then, not a design architecture. If you see someone washing their car with a sandblaster, who's the Idiot? The sandblaster or the guy sandblasting. Use the right tool for the right job.

OOP will be around for a long time. It's an efficient compliment to RAD tools and makes development of large applications with large dev teams managable and affordable. This is coming from a former COBOL developer. There are benifits to both, never limit yourself.

[drunkenmonkey]

Procedural language is synonymous for faster (much more faster) processing.

faster how? processing; how about in the long run when there is maintenance to be done? Not so fast then, and if it's procedural there is ALWAYS maintenance that needs to be done.

[chemicalNova]

..what is this procedural programming you speak of?..

chem

[RhinoBull]

how about in the long run when there is maintenance to be done?..

So what? What is your concern?