Re: Should I learn OO programming?

My basic philosophy of programming is that if I have to do something more than once I'm going to put it in a module or a library or a library of modules and never write it again. This in essence is where OO programming enters the picture.

If you can create a base of good objects that you can re-use and keep stable you save yourself a lot of work later on. Not only that if you have written your modules correctly and in a concise fashion anybody else that has to maintain your code will be able to understand what you did in the first place.

At my current consulting assignment there are two basic classes of code that I have had to deal with here. There is the stuff that was written in an OO style and the legacy stuff.

When a defect is reported in the OO stuff I can usually track the problem down in a manner of minutes. If the legacy stuff breaks, and it does often, I can be chasing my way around the code for days trying to find a problem.

Get by? I'm not sure what that means to you but I'm not sure that getting by is acceptable...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter L. Berghold --- Peter@Berghold.Net
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Comment on Re: Should I learn OO programming?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Object Orientation ne Modularity by Vynce (Friar) on May 24, 2001 at 14:47 UTC
a lot of people seem to have the idea that you can't have modular, reusable code without object orientation, and vice versa. yes, it's true that properly written object-oriented code is very modular and reusable; it is even true that object-oriented techniques make it easier. but they are separate concepts. OO is a way of looking at the relationships between data and functions. modularity is about getting to reuse code easily and cleanly, without having to rewrite all the places you use it. remember that perl modules existed before perl OO; in fact, a perl class is a special case of a perl package. using Exporter, or any of a number of other techniques, you can write a module that is useful and, well, modular, without being object-oriented. should you learn modularity, reusability, genericity? yes, yes, yes. that's what programming is about, isn't it? making instructions that will be reused on many sets of data, so that you don't have to do the same things over and over yourself. writing code clips to be used in multiple programs is just taking that a step further (and i think we will never finish taking those steps). but that isn't what you asked. should you learn object-oriented programming? i think so. i find it a great way to solve most of the large programming projects i face. i find it refreshing and invigorating. and perhaps most to the point, i think more and more programming will be object-oriented, so if you still want to be writing code in 19 years, i recommned learning object-oriented. should you write your OO code to be modular, reusable, and as generic as it makes sense to do so? yes. is it possible to write OO code that is mangled, tangled, unmaintainable spagetti you'd be ashamed to show your hair stylist? yes, actually. it's easy. but you shouldn't. .	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Object Orientation ne Modularity
by Vynce (Friar) on May 24, 2001 at 14:47 UTC

a lot of people seem to have the idea that you can't have modular, reusable code without object orientation, and vice versa.

yes, it's true that properly written object-oriented code is very modular and reusable; it is even true that object-oriented techniques make it easier. but they are separate concepts. OO is a way of looking at the relationships between data and functions. modularity is about getting to reuse code easily and cleanly, without having to rewrite all the places you use it.

remember that perl modules existed before perl OO; in fact, a perl class is a special case of a perl package. using Exporter, or any of a number of other techniques, you can write a module that is useful and, well, modular, without being object-oriented.

should you learn modularity, reusability, genericity? yes, yes, yes. that's what programming is about, isn't it? making instructions that will be reused on many sets of data, so that you don't have to do the same things over and over yourself. writing code clips to be used in multiple programs is just taking that a step further (and i think we will never finish taking those steps). but that isn't what you asked.

should you learn object-oriented programming? i think so. i find it a great way to solve most of the large programming projects i face. i find it refreshing and invigorating. and perhaps most to the point, i think more and more programming will be object-oriented, so if you still want to be writing code in 19 years, i recommned learning object-oriented.

should you write your OO code to be modular, reusable, and as generic as it makes sense to do so? yes. is it possible to write OO code that is mangled, tangled, unmaintainable spagetti you'd be ashamed to show your hair stylist? yes, actually. it's easy. but you shouldn't.

[reply]