|
I ran across someone recently who says the way to move past object oriented programming (OOP) is to go back to simply telling the computer what to do, to clear OOP from your mind like it never happened. That would make it an 'OOPs'?
|
|
|
|
|
Another entry in the "who not to hire" catalog.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. If someone doesn't understand OOP, I'd even doubt their non-OOP skills. Before my own conversion I came across a situation where the logic was getting eight 'if' levels deep. OOP simplified the heck out of it, and I would never go back. Just reading that code hurt! And of course the function size drastically shrank after the refactoring. I'd never want a programmer on my team arguing for the old way!
|
|
|
|
|
Or the other way round?
He won't hire you for his team of Functional Programmers either.
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: to clear OOP from your mind like it never happened.
Like that night when... ooops, sorry. 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What happens in Visual Studio STAYS in Visual Studio.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
C# kinda forces you into the OOP paradigm, even if you create one giant class that contains all of your functional code.
I've been programming for over 40 years, and until about 1990, all of my code was "functional". When I started using c++ in 1991, I fought the learning curve going to OOP. Using C++ didn't force you to do OOP, it just made it possible. With the advent of C#, MS really pushed hard on the OOP of things.
OOP is merely a paradigm for organizing code. It makes sense, and having done functional programming, I have no desire to revisit it (functional programming).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 18-May-20 9:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
In my very first university level programming class, we did OOP without knowing of it. The programming language was plain Pascal, and we were taught how to group closely relate data into a given type of record (c/c++: struct). Operations to manipulate the data of each record type were directly associated with the record type, and no other code was allowed to modify the fields of the record. All calls to the functions took a specific record instance as its first parameter - we didn't name it "this", but I guess we could have.
This was a nice and orderly coding discipline, not enforced by the compiler but by the professor. So when "real" OOP arrived a couple of years later, it really was not much of a change to me; it was just syntactic sugar. I never learned the unruly behaviour that makes it difficult to accept OOP.
This is quite similar to what was then termed "structured programming", roughly the same as goto-less programming. I learned while and repeat/until and if/then/else before I learned goto, so I never could see the value of it: It just breaks everything, every structure! I never learned goto misbehaviour either. I think I have benefited from that, too.
(I am not perfectly hones saying that I didn't know goto - my very first, high school self study, programming experience was with Univac's very first attempt at Basic, with single-letter or single-letter-single-digit numeric variable names and 26 string variable names. There I saw the goto. But I consider that just a toy experience, at the level of programming Lego motors and lights.)
|
|
|
|
|
Functional != Procedural.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Those who haven't studied languages in a more formal sense are usually quite unaware of the "functional language" concept, and use the term "functional" in a much more informal way.
I don't know of #realJSOP's formal background, but you certainly may be a decent programmer even if you have never seen a functional languge or the definition of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no formal background.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not inferring anything about #realJSOPs ability - from previous posts he evidently has a lot of experience. I was aiming to inform, not denegrate.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
In the early 90s I was a COBOL developer and a bunch of us were sent to a class on Structured Programming, taught by an instructor from Ed Yourdon. About a year after that I was sent to a conference on OOP and guess who the speaker was - Ed Yourdon himself.
That is when I realized that most of these computer buzzwords are primarily geared towards making money for consultants.
|
|
|
|
|
 I think you're on to something there.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I learned OOP from university professors, textbooks, numerous articles in various magazines, the mechanisms provided in new languages... I never saw a single "OOP consultant".
I guess there has been consultants providing Cobol training as well. And Fortran training. And Pascal training. And SQL trainng. Maybe thes are also "buzzwords primarily geared towards making money for the consultants".
Usually, a buzzword is something that represents very little specific contents, it is marketing only. But OOP represents some very specific programming methodology and discipline; it is not just an empty buzzword. For a number of ascpects, it is definitely more convenient to use a language that has support for these concepts - but again, they are clearly identifiable concepts, concrete mechanisms (e.g. "class inheritance").
So I cannot agree that OOP is just a buzzword for consultants to make a fortune on.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Maybe thes are also "buzzwords primarily geared towards making money for the consultants".
*cough* agile *cough* devops.*cough*
It’s true that OOP wasn’t solely driven by consultants, but I personally know a few that made a pretty penny (as well as many ugly ones) pushing it, despite never touching a line of code, or a line on a design document. It seems whenever each new buzzword pops up, rats swarm in for the cash.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's also an ego thing, people wanting to make their mark on an industry.
One of the things i have noticed working in IT and the science fields is that while the technology may change there is one thing that does not change - strongly opinionated and occasionally unreasonably strongly opinionated people
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
2020 marks 60 years since ALGOL 60 laid the groundwork for a multitude of computer languages. Where our fascination with semi-colons begins;
Even the name sounds like it came from the future.
"The defining committee couldn't agree on how to do input/output," said Herbert. "They decided that would be left to a library, and that library would be user dependent." <- yeah, not a great plan there
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft has quietly added a built-in network packet sniffer to the Windows 10 October 2018 Update, and it has gone unnoticed since its release. Yup, smells like a network.
After all, why bother letting people know about new features like this?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: After all, why bother letting people know about new features like this?
Because it is not intended to be used by you? 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that while our ability to identify and treat pandemics has improved greatly since the outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918, there is still a lot of room for improvement. So, let's just wait the 5-10 years for a quantum machine, OK?
Where the 5-10 year number stays the same for 10-20 years.
The "effort" isn't as much finding a vaccine, as making sure it's safe and effective across all us bags o' chemicals. I don't think the quantums can help with that.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to get laid off. I don't want to get laid off. I know, I'll write an article on AI solving COVID-19. Oh, someone did that? Quantum computers solving it! Yeah, that's the ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: The "effort" isn't as much finding a vaccine, as making sure it's safe and effective across all us bags o' chemicals. I don't think the quantums can help with that.
Of course not... you forgot the AI 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear blockchain and icons will also help.
|
|
|
|
|
"We don’t want to only carry astronauts to the Moon, we want to carry our values." Because as we all know, the Moon is a harsh mistress
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
