Function-oriented Design

[litenlitenliten]

I have a stupid question. I am supposed to write an essay on Function-oriented Design. Is there such a term anymore, is anybdy using function-oriented design anymore, and can it be defined as everything which is not object oriented design?

/Hanna

 

[cpjust]

Yes, unfortunately there are far too many supposed C++ programers that can't seem to get over their addiction to C; so they may write some classes, but then write the rest of their code as if it was C. :-(

I like to call it "C+" programming, since it hasn't quite earned that 2nd + just yet. ;-)

 

[BobRodes]

Here's a typical undergraduate set of lecturing slides on the subject from 10 years ago.

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/undergraduate/345/fall03/mitchell/Lectures/functionalDesign.ppt

Most of what I find on the internet comes from the same person, one Ian Somerville, and is dated. It would be interesting to see someone compare and contrast the concept with OOAD. Somerville seems to feel that OO's usefulness as compared to FO has to do with situations involving "stateful" rather that "stateless" objects. I think that most people simply say that in an OO design, objects that maintain state across method calls have higher overhead than objects that do not, and one emphasizes the value of statelessness in the OO paradigm, rather than suggesting that an FO paradigm (by the way, I've never heard of this before) is more appropriate when state isn't maintained across method calls.

In any case, I would base my research on comparing FO and OO, and seeing if perhaps the FO concept has fallen by the wayside over time. Of course, if my professor is insisting that the concept is alive and well, then I might handle it a bit differently.

HTH

Bob