in Object Oriented Programming why importance give to data not to code. and in Procedural oriented programming why more importance give to code not to data.

What is more important? Is it data or are it methods which process the data?

1.) Data
Let us have data and no method does process it.
--> Useless
2.) Methods
Let us have methods but no data is to process
-->Useless

Both, data and methods are in something “like a symbioses”…more then this, neither data nor methods make sense without the counter part.

It was a “long” time before OOP approach was in discussion where a very clever designer Niklaus Wirth declared data hiding. From my point of view a first approach for OOP. Data are “invisible” (opaque) to the user, but so called “modules” supported the methods to manipulate the data (Wirth investigated MODULA, therefore module, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula-2).

Anyway the approach that data becomes a first attention is not wrong, but without the methods data are death 

Kind regards
Idle63

First of all, you should understand that all these OO and Procedural styles are very simple 'abstract' concepts. Meaning of 'abstract' in the dictionary is ; "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence".

And now, Who told you that OOP gives more important to data than code and Procedural programming gives more important to code than data ?

Object-oriented programming simply groups some code and some data. That's it, and you can never say that OOP gives more important to data or the other way around.

Your statement/question does not make sense to me
Look at it from a pragamtic point of view:
a) in procedural programming, the client code takes some data and processes it with often intimate knowledge of the data
b) in object oriented approaches the client code tells the data to process, not knowing nor taking care of the data details

The second approach allows to abstract from the data details. It also allows for concepts like dependency injection, etc.

While you can always construct OOP like frameworks in procedural languages, it's rater in-convenient to do so.

My first program...
As a beginner of programming (no matter what language), you start writing one Main function and all processing is done there - huge, ugly, not maintainable.

...with functions...
Then you quickly realize that functions can help organizing the code. The functions are quickly defined (e.g. load data, manipulate data, save results, etc.). The tricky part is then to define what the data is to pass/return to/from the functions. You quickly clutter each function with more and more parameters since yet the last additional info needs to be passed to the function.

...together with the data...
Now, you realize that data entities can be combined into meaningful records: entities that belong together are put together (e.g. a stack "type" contains the data array plus the top position - these two entities only make sense if passed around together).

...tied...
If you care more about "what belongs together stays together", you organize your functions such that functions with strong affinity to a given "type" show that affinity either by name and/or by having the first parameter always being of the respective type. This is then convention only and you look forward to a language where the type and the associated functions are tied.

Here you reach the object based world that combines data with functions. This allows for inforamtion hiding and abstraction. It does not allow for polymorphism yet.

...in varying form...
Sooner or later, you reach the point where it might be handy to pass similar but different instances of some types to a function. E.g. a logging function takes a "message", but you want to pass an "error" or a "warning" or an "info" message object. In this given case, all these types would have one in common, a to_string() function that returns the adequate text representation of the object. The logging function would not have to care about what object is passed, as long as it provides such a to_string() function.

...OOP
So you move on to a language that allows to define polymorphism. Now you reached some object oriented stage.

In all the evolution above, there is no clear focus on data verus code.

Cheers
Andi

I think my qus answer is this:-

POP approach gives no importance to data. By ‘data’ we mean the information collected from user, the new results obtained after calculations etc. If you are familiar with ‘C programming’, you may recollect “storage classes” in C. In C, a data member must be declared GLOBAL inorder to make it accessible by 2 or more functions in the program. What happens when 2 or more functions work on the same data member ? If there are 10 functions in a program, all these 10 functions can access a global data member. It is possible one function may accidentally change values of this global data member. If this data member is a key element of the program, any such accidental manipulation will affect the whole program. It will be too difficult to debug & identify which function is causing the problem if the program is really big.

In OOP There is no need of “global data types” as in POP and hence data will not flow freely around the program.

www.stepwisedotnet.com