Timeline for Is OOP becoming easier or harder? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2015 at 13:44 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:45 | |||||
| Jul 12, 2015 at 13:20 | history | edited | tunmise fasipe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2015 at 13:04 | history | closed |
gnat durron597 user22815 user40980 Dipan Mehta |
Opinion-based | |
| Jul 12, 2015 at 13:03 | comment | added | Dipan Mehta | OK so it is hard complex and broken. What exactly is the question? | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 4:27 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 12, 2015 at 13:04 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2012 at 10:01 | vote | accept | tunmise fasipe | ||
| Jun 11, 2012 at 11:08 | comment | added | Antonio2011a | IMHO OOP as it exists today is broken. Do I know the solution? Nope. But when you end up with things like AbstractSingletonFactoryProxyBeanBridgeAdapterManagers, something isn't right. | |
| Jun 11, 2012 at 7:26 | comment | added | mouviciel | @LieRyan - I've seen problems become complex just because nobody in charge was able to solve them with simple imperative programming and attacked them with design patterns on top of OOP on top of the simple imperative solution that should have been implemented alone. | |
| Jun 11, 2012 at 4:53 | answer | added | James Anderson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 11, 2012 at 2:12 | answer | added | Telastyn | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 11, 2012 at 1:25 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | you're comparing apples and orange, by your logic, then imperative programming (i.e. loops and if-condition) is simpler than all the things we have today. Imperative programming is the building blocks for classes/OOP, and classes/OOP is the building blocks for design patterns. Things become more complex as you progress because you're solving more complex problems. | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 22:31 | comment | added | tunmise fasipe | object - "a construct that represent an entity by its attributes and behaviors" - A lecturer that still tells his students that these days is practically wrong | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 22:30 | comment | added | tunmise fasipe |
I only heard about smallTalk. But I started OOP with Java using Applets before I move to Swing. Then, define an object - "a construct that represent an entity by its attributes and behaviors" e.g. A bird has head, 2 legs, 2 wings and can fly(), sing(), hop() etc. That definition isn't wholly true about objects these days. You'll have to ask which one - Value Object? (No behaviors), Immutable Objects (no identity, can't change state) - a bird at birth will never grow beyond that. Sometimes Struct = Object. Bridging the gap between praticality and theory is where issue arises.
|
|
| Jun 10, 2012 at 22:12 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | Original OOP looked almost nothing like what you’ve shown. OOP isn’t about syntax, it’s about a kind of abstraction popularised by Smalltalk. This doesn’t necessarily prove your point wrong, nor is the premise flawed; rather, it’s even more true than you realise. | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 21:57 | comment | added | James | I've been thinking about this while watching some depressing football. My opinion is that it is neither easier nor harder, but the OOP-correctness of a program seems to be encroaching on the algorithmic-correctness of the program; i.e. a perfectly adequate solution may be disregarded due to it not adhering fully to the current OOP flavour-of-the-month practices. | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 18:37 | comment | added | user1249 | Harder for whom? | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 18:34 | answer | added | Maja Piechotka | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 18:28 | comment | added | razpeitia |
I would rename addItem for add and removeItem for remove. Because It's easier to read. stock.add(item) or stock.remove(item). And more OOP oriented.
|
|
| Jun 10, 2012 at 16:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/211858954219827200 | ||
| Jun 10, 2012 at 15:35 | answer | added | tdammers | timeline score: 35 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 15:05 | history | edited | tunmise fasipe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:56 | answer | added | Pete | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:53 | answer | added | NoChance | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:27 | answer | added | DeadMG | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:25 | answer | added | Jeanne Boyarsky | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:21 | comment | added | johannes | Creating a good software architecture has always been hard and will (most likely) always be. | |
| Jun 10, 2012 at 14:17 | history | asked | tunmise fasipe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |