OOP Programming 3

[IronRocket]

Just wondering if it's just me. I recently took a .net class and got a "B" in it. I learned some OOP in it and I felt I hit a brick wall. For some reason I think I have a mental block in where I can't understand OOP that well.

I've read it over and over again...if I keep my mind from drifting...I still don't understand the concepts. Just wondering if anyone has had the same problem of learning this stuff or if I'm plain stupid.

 

[lionelhill]

Oh, yes. Sorry, didn't mean to start a "OOP good or bad" discussion. Really I meant just what I said: it would be easier for some of us to get the motivation to think in OOP if the book authors could come up with some more inspiring and robust examples.

Also the problem of badly-implemented black boxes isn't confined to OOP. A good old-fashioned procedural library is also just a collection of black boxes, which may or may not be efficient.

OOP is weird to humans at first sight because it's very noun-based, and humans (programers in particular) are people that do things. We're verb-based. When I try to imagine what verb-based "OOP" ("AOP, action orientated programing??") would look like, I only end up with OOP anyway, because my verb "move" has to change depending on whether it's moving a cat, a paperclip, or a data file.

 

[AlexCuse]

lionel - Your comments brought this to mind

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html

[small]----signature below----[/small]
I'm pushing an elephant up the stairs

My Crummy Web Page

 

[CajunCenturion]

That's great - thanks AlexCuse.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[lespaul]

that was great Alex!

Leslie

 

[lionelhill]

Alex, you've made my day. Possibly my year. What a wondeful blog. I was a bit worried about my last post because I thought it made me look like a weirdo having a rant.

I remember looking at bees, many years ago, who make a dance to show other bees where nectar can be found; it made me wonder what it would be like to use a language based entirely on prepositions. Actually it was very dehumanising (but probably quite beeising; who knows?).

Are there any languages that allow you to define a method without first specifying the objects on which it is to operate? It definitely could be done...

 

[DonQuichote]

Sure. Most OO languages allow them. They are called static methods ("Shared methods" if you do VB .NET). Traditionally, Mathematical functions are often programmed as static methods of a static Math class.

Non-pure OO languages often have plain old functions as well.