What the elephant happened to OO design?
-
I would have agreed with you even still 2 years ago. Now I am really facing the market reality, and I am less evangelistic about holy code. Actually, getting things done faster and cheaper has superseded the need of quality - alas - and people do not care about quality anymore. Security issues in Facebook due to poor coding ? After a bit of show from Zuckerberg, everybody has already forgotten. Thousands and thousands of bugs in Microsoft products ? People earn money by blogging and youtubing about workarounds. So if the demand is "please get me this done for yesterday and for no money", then copy & paste code is plain OK. In my current position, which gets a bit above the boundaries of SW development, management made the choice to get products done and tested in low-cost locations, with a ratio of 3 people designing for 2 people fixing the design mistakes as they pop up in series production. Altogether, these 5 people are still 1/3 the cost of one solid and experienced engineer here and they are processing about 2 to 3 times as much projects, so ... The trend in the industry is to get low-cost locations do rapid-prototyping as product design and rapid-fixing on a case to case demand, since - unless very bis issues - nobody cares about quality. The experience of the designers in low -cost locations grow faster than their cost, so in about 2 to 3 years, we can expect an equivalent design skill as in high-cost locations, but for still half of the price, and the 2 fixing guys can probably be reduced to 1. The only sacrificed element in all this is a bit of quality, but foremost innovation - future will tell if the business model can survive.
As a guy that wears a cybersecurity hat, I thank you for ensuring my future employment ;P
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Polymorphism is DAMN useful. MS broke inheritance in .net when they coded themselves into a corner resulting in the seemingly arbitrary restriction that a programmer could only inherit from a single class, but multiple interfaces. What a crock. None of these OOP constructs would be confusing if instructors actually knew how to, oh, I don't know - INSTRUCT.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Polymorphism is DAMN useful. MS broke inheritance in .net when they coded themselves into a corner resulting in the seemingly arbitrary restriction that a programmer could only inherit from a single class, but multiple interfaces. What a crock. None of these OOP constructs would be confusing if instructors actually knew how to, oh, I don't know - INSTRUCT.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Well, it as not something Microsoft came up with. Languages like Java had that way before C# did. People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all. And compiler authors don't have to deal with the diamond problem and all the complexities it adds to the compiler definitions.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
-
Nothing has happened to OOD; it is still a very powerful design tool. The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives. Make no mistake; within their limitations, some of them are very good coders. If they were to be exposed to proper design principles (and some decent mentoring), some of them could become decent software engineers. The problem with the more capable ones is that they have no idea that OOD and other design tools even exist!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives.
And then said companies tell the remaining few senior devs to dumb down their code so the juniors can understand it, because the code reflects a well thought out design that befuddles those that don't have good design skills! :laugh:
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
Why would you not write a class to handle it?
It's called "dumbing down." ;P
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
Well, it as not something Microsoft came up with. Languages like Java had that way before C# did. People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all. And compiler authors don't have to deal with the diamond problem and all the complexities it adds to the compiler definitions.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
Nish Nishant wrote:
People moving from C++ usually find it an annoying restriction
That's me - in spades...
Nish Nishant wrote:
but after a few years of coding in C# or Java, most people usually find it to not be much of a limiting factor at all
Nope. Still annoying, even after 11 years of coding in C#. I'm honestly not interested or concerned with the burdens experienced by compiler authors. The only reason C# even exists is because Microslop was bitch-slapped for trying to take over the java domain. It's okay, though. I'm old, and soon I'll be dead, allowing Microsoft to continue on unmolested, because soy-boys willingly accept their assault on programming languages, and all the real programmers that raged against their absurdities will have passed away. Eventually, you'll be able to write complete programs with a series of words like "flopgloop" and "pardultary". No matter what order you place them in, the app will still compile, but the functionality will change. EDIT ============== Microslop has proven once again they don't have any original thoughts left, by purchasing GitHub.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Some people think that they are programming, simply by blindly copying/pasting working blocks of code and "search" the internet for other snippets to copy. Ask for a minor change, and they'll replace the entire block by another that has been "found".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
why encapsulation is ignored
Because history repeats.
I live in Oregon, and I'm an engineer.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
The problem is the severe shortage (and consequent high salaries) of good software engineers. In lieu of decent software engineers, companies hire programmers who are a lot cheaper, are much easier to find, but could not use proper design to save their lives.
And then said companies tell the remaining few senior devs to dumb down their code so the juniors can understand it, because the code reflects a well thought out design that befuddles those that don't have good design skills! :laugh:
Latest Article - Building a Prototype Web-Based Diagramming Tool with SVG and Javascript Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
:sigh:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
Couldn't agree more. I once worked with a guy who copy/pasted everything and had no idea what it actually was he did. He used
someCollection.Where(x => x.MeetsCriteria());every day for over a year. Then I noticed he usedbool any = c.Where(...).Count() > 0;I told him to usesomeCollection.Any(...)instead because it's a lot cheaper and more readable. However, he did not understand the types of the input parameters toAny(Expression> predicate)or the even simplerAny(Func predicate). Spoiler:WhereandAnyhave the exact same input parameter. He literally told me "I know I type 'Where' and then some letter, whatever that is, and then '=>' and then I can magically use properties on the objects of a collection. I didn't know it was the same for Any, I never knew the parameter type." :omg: :wtf: :~ X| Since then I've told that guy NEVER to copy/paste again, it's a right that needs to be deserved and he clearly didn't deserve it X| Of course he kept on copy/pasting because that was all he could... A useful code monkey, he had his place, but he needed a lot of guidance.Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
In my experience (~= 15 years of research about minimalistic design approaches) OOD is a flawed concept. In theory, there's nothing wrong with it and it should lead to a better than average design, consistently. In practice, abstraction is horrible, because people are really awful at defining, sharing and accepting the initial purpose of abstracted objects. In part, this is because making the abstraction is rewarding in and of itself, while accepting an existing one is horrendously tedious. The only form of OOD that seems to work consistently, is when you severely limit it to communication interfaces, DBO's and DTO's and drop polymorphism and inheritance all together. Anything else, and people will misinterpret the abstracts made and muck it up beyond comprehension. Also, reusability at object level is a maintenance nightmare. Reusability at API level is where it's at.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
charlieg wrote:
control c / control v must be banned
No problem with that. I use shift-delete / shift-insert. :-D
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Everything I develop is centered around OOD/OOP as I use objects for the organizational constructs of my projects. However, with very rare exception I do not use inheritance due to the many problems that senior software engineering analysts have found with it over the years. This is not to say that inheritance is a bad concept but that it has to be used sparingly and carefully. Unfortunately, many developers rush into using it thinking that it is the real meaning of OOD. When I was learning OOD many years ago I actually studied the history of its invention in Sweden (Simula-67). My conclusion was that it was created so that developers could better organize their development endeavors, not for the primary constructs that people promote. In business applications, in general, there is little actual need for the use of inheritance and polymorphism, though there are applications that certainly could make good use of these attributes. However, here I am speaking generally. As OOD emerged in popularity within the development community a small book was produced by a computer scientist back in the 1980s. This book went through all of the types of applications that could truly benefit from the use of OOD. None of the applications related to business development as all were from the scientific and internals communities. In addition, the use of generic modules and the concepts of reuse were completely disproven many years ago simply from the statistical studies that were made against so many such projects. Generic modules are nearly impossible to create as regular implementations into most applications since such modules must be relatively static in nature (ie: date validation module). The rise of popularity of generically designed modules was a direct result of incompetent technical managers who tried to foresee every possibility for any module developed. The result was terrible frustrations on the part of developers and projects that did not succeed very well if at all. This was because, in reality, very few modules can be designed to be generic just like not every type of design can be shoe-horned into being an "Expert System" when that too was a craze in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Object re-use failed as a direct result of organizations not setting up working repositories for re-usable modules that were designed to be used in such a manner (ie: data access layer). The result here, and which was eventually written about in our technical journals was that development teams\developers si
-
I think you mean control+insert / shift+insert shift+delete is the same as control+X as further evidence about MS lack of originality per a previous post. Control + C, V, X were copied from Apple's Macintosh.
Actually no, I do mean shift-delete + shift-insert. (I find it easier to cut and immediately paste, then paste the copy). No need to move the right hand then. ) Also means that VS marks the "copied from" line as changed, which is a useful reminder when scrolling back to copy other code from the same area.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
One of the things that happened was CRUD. When I learned OOAD back in the 80's, we designed our objects around what they did - methods first, attributes when necessary, and properties weren't just for exposing backing variables. "Data Objects" lived only in the back tiers. Things like MVC soon moved them to the clients. Then the Web, JavaScript, and CSS (where until recently everything was global and single threaded) returned us to procedural coding. Welcome back to the 70's. When all of your objects are just data objects and everything is global and procedural, what need is there for OO design? :mad: Then,(misinterpreting) Agile - hack in circles until it (sort of) works. On top of all of that, OO design is hard. Really hard to do well. Few initial design objects make it into the final code unscathed. Finally, design is documentation. We're Agile - "Working code over comprehensive documentation..." :sigh:
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
On my team of 4 programmers, I am the only one who even knows that the four pillars exist. Getting any of them to use a property is near impossible, but reflection is in almost every program. Mind you, there are utility classes for email, sFTP, etc, but the class that uses them is C code consisting of inline functions with everything forced through the same path. Special cases requires switches everywhere they differ from the rigid flow. (carp mode off). I have 5.5 years of OOP before this job and wish OOP was appreciated. The problem is that just like 'cheapest programmers', management is 'cheapest management' and no longer has the tech savvy to use the proper techniques. It is a self-feeding trend that I do not see changing. If a programmer can write code that stumps his coworkers, he gets a raise.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
I would argue that there are really five pillars of OOP and OOAD. Without loose-coupling, using the other four becomes spaghetti.
-
I know the 4 pillars of OOD - but my love is for abstraction and encapsulation. Polymorphism is useful, but I've found it confuses many developers. Inheritance results in hemorrhoids and other digestive issues, so unless I have a very, very generic object, I tend to avoid it. That said, it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored. I'm living in a static global world where we hack away every day... I have a file that contains data. Why would you not write a class to handle it? Every damn tool we have is a C++ compiler. :doh: I'm thinking that to advance software development to the next level, control c / control v must be banned.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
charlieg wrote:
it baffles me to the point of wanting to cut myself why encapsulation is ignored.
Depending on what you cut with, and where, and how, you cut, it may violate encapsulation.
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
-
Yeah really. The good thing about this guy was that he knew his shortcomings and acted accordingly (did not invent anything new and when he did he asked a second opinion). Then I've worked with people who were completely incompetent, but still thought they could tell shout me how to write my code X|
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
