| Forum List • Thread List • Reply • Refresh • New Topic • Search • Previous • Next  1  |  1. Can't stand oop#13125 Posted by: exxfile 2009-10-01 07:02:12 | Hi All
I am a pretty green programmer but I want to talk a little bit about my
history with learning so far .
I started with java because I accessed one forum that talked about computer
programming and stated that java was the best programming language for
networking applications. So I started to learn java and I tried as hard as I could to understand the structure of object oriented programming , but the harder I tried the more obscure things got . Finally I got fed up and threw my java book away and said nuts to the whole thing .
Afew months later I couldnt stay away so I decided I would go back and analyse the situation again .
I found a book called How to think like a computer scientist which is a must for anyone that is a beginner . ( Take it from a guy that is stupid enough to kick himself in the face a hundred times before getting something right ).
This book cleared up afew mysteries that about programming , for instance putting a word to the good old fashioned way of doing things called procedural.
Why it was so hard to learn .
Things all the dam books I read ( all supposed to be for complete noobs ) never explained .
That functions even existed , and how arguments are encoded into functions.
Everything I read was all about methods. ( Still didn't make sense) the way they explained things .
Classes contained both data attributes and methods , meaning that I cannot use my own names for variables. Gee that makes a whole lot of sense , alot more of someone else code to cipher . Encapsulation is what they should have done to the inventor of oop .
Data hiding , nice !
polymorphism and inheritance ... how about change the name and copy paste !
These books argued that oop was a better way to create modular coding by explaining how things were in the early old days using goto statements.
Berrer known as spagetti code .
This is pure bs , procedural programming as everyone here knows is completely modular and structured and reusible . So what are these oop guys talking about ?
I just hate oop and my attitude towards it is don't fix what aint broke .
So now they say that python is one of the easiest languages to learn , but what they don't tell you is that it's actually 2 languages now and they are completely integrated with each other. oop python and procedural python , yummy .]
Go figure out the library with shitty documentation and 2 coding conventions to deal with , nice and easy right. For a beginner NOT !
I am here and no one is going to tear me away from classic REXX except the mods and then I ll sneak back in using a different account name HAHA !@
So someone just tell me I am not so stupid for fealing the way I do even if you think I am a complete dud just to make me feel better .Rexx noob | 2. If I understood what you were saying, then #13128 | I have to agree. A guy here tried to explain why OOP was the way to go. If I boil it down to its simplest form (and what I understood), then classes are the same as "generalize subroutines". And ....
Ah - but with a class, you can drop it onto a printer, and it "knows" that it should print something. Yeah - and if I write a generalize subroutine that takes different argumets, one could be "print", one could be "open" etc etc. Oh, and did I forget to mention - if you write your code in a structered manner, it might look something like
ARG whatever
SELECT
WHEN whatever = 'PRINT'
rc = print_routine.rex()
WHEN whatever = 'OPEN'
rc = open_routine.rex()
etc etc
END
and guess what. Yepp - the print_routine.rex routine can be called from any other rexx script.
Remind me again - what does oop do that's SO revolutionary ? | 3. #13129 Posted by: PeterJ 2009-10-01 21:13:23 | I don't use OOP very often, and if: only Reginald's basic implementation of it.
Nonetheless the OOP criticism seems a bit excessive; there is some beauty in it.
Of course it’s not really new, technically you can achieve OOP behavior with many conventional programming languages and it has been certainly used in that way.
My possibly incorrect distinction of procedural coding and OOP is:
- Procedural coding separates data (definition) from functions (coding) using and manipulating the data.
o You may have data structures (copy books) in each using program
o You may have access methods defined in each using program
- OOP keeps both units together. There are some benefits in this proposal:
o The program does not need to know how to access the data, even reading/writing of complex data structures are a black box. All you get is a logical record.
o Changing/Enhancing the data structure is easy it is in one place
o Improving/changing the access method is also simpler, the code is a centralized
o Functions are centralized, duplicate coding is minimized, this again is a maintenance benefit
o You can have several instances of a method loaded and work in parallel on it. This is difficult to achieve with conventional languages.
All these OOP benefits can of course be achieved by modular design that separates data access, federates functions, etc. Therefore it’s quite true to say methods of OOP have been used for decades in the IT business, and it is of course nonsense to say conventional (procedural) coding must be spaghetti code. Some experts say OOP is for IT as inventing the wheel. Usually I reply I rode bicycle long time before you have been planned. "Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!
I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you!
Is that all you blighters can do?"
from My Fair Lady
| | Forum List • Thread List • Reply • Refresh • New Topic • Search • Previous • Next 1 |
|
|
搜索
论坛
Home
回顶部
g.yi.org Hits:0
