OOP and the scope of a class, am I wrong?
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
I'm not a OO person but it seams like
TextFile.read()encapsulates much better what action is being performed on an instance ofTextFilethanTextFileReadwhich might be applied to some unknown object that may or may not support "read". Or worse, has subverted TextFileRead to do something totally unrelated, like open a can of beer. Maybe the Profs in question are confusing an interface with a class? Dunno. Seems wrong to me.Keep Calm and Carry On
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Your take is the way I learned it. I thought it was the way Bjarne Stroustrup intended it.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Mixing (up) function(s) and actions. ReadTextFile is some clumsy rewording of a "TextReader" class.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Mixing (up) function(s) and actions. ReadTextFile is some clumsy rewording of a "TextReader" class.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
In this case it was part of an assignment to read phony medical records from a CSV. A more horrible name I could scarcely fathom. I was helping with their homework, and trying to teach them what their prof wasn't.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Personally I can't make a bridge between ReadTextFile and the car... Anyway you example shows a classic thing, that classes are usually not 'stand alone' and in a certain way 'connected'/'depended' Your examlpe: Engine.Start() does depend on the state of the Gear. Either Engine asks the gear for 'I'm ready to start' or the gear sends a message to the engine 'hey, I'm at gear 1 (without pressed clutch), not really good to start at the moment' and so on and on and on... Abstracting the reality is usually very hard. Only my two cents.
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
That's the way I learned it also, of course I taught myself but every reference I came across explained it that way.
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else. PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
-
Personally I can't make a bridge between ReadTextFile and the car... Anyway you example shows a classic thing, that classes are usually not 'stand alone' and in a certain way 'connected'/'depended' Your examlpe: Engine.Start() does depend on the state of the Gear. Either Engine asks the gear for 'I'm ready to start' or the gear sends a message to the engine 'hey, I'm at gear 1 (without pressed clutch), not really good to start at the moment' and so on and on and on... Abstracting the reality is usually very hard. Only my two cents.
Of course, but I was simplifying and glossing over details to simply get to the larger point, to wit: In my mind, a class is a noun, not a verb, essentially.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
It's complicated. :~
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
Of course, but I was simplifying and glossing over details to simply get to the larger point, to wit: In my mind, a class is a noun, not a verb, essentially.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
Your take is the way I learned it. I thought it was the way Bjarne Stroustrup intended it.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
a class is a noun
Not really, since a class encapsulates properties (nouns), and actions (verbs); so it could be an ablative gerund.
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
honey the codewitch wrote:
But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like ReadTextFile and it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be.
This could be the beginning of a in-depth discussion on Communication. I have to parse the beginning of your sentence very closely and pull out "I'm hearing..." part. You are hearing that from a beginning student, I believe. Now, we can't be sure 1.if the Professors are actually teaching this (that a class is one action / functionality) 2. if it is the way the student is understanding it Let's say it is the latter ( choice 2 above). Now, that may simply mean that the Professor is teaching a concept poorly -- actually doesn't believe that a class is just one action but has somehow inadvertently used words that create a students understanding to be that. From what I remember about Professors and coding, it seems likely that the Professor is actually teaching OOP wrong. Few colleges have Professors which actually program or have been on large teams which have implemented large systems using OOP. However, I could also see that the student learning about OOP sees a simple example (because all University examples are far too simple (because anything large requires too much work on the Professor's part) and assumes that because there is only one functionality in the class along with a phrase the student has heard (Single Responsibility Principle) leads the student to believe that a class must have only one action. So, here we are back at the beginning. We don't know if: 1. The professor is wrong 2. the professor is confusing and the learning lands improperly 3. The student misunderstands on her own. We're down at the bottom, writhing in the Communication pain. :rolleyes: The best thing to do is: Redirect!! And that seems to be what you are doing. Tell the student the proper use of Classes and why they can have more actions. Good luck with Communication. I'm sure that I too have added some form of communication problem while writing this up. :laugh:
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
I used to work with a guy who did so much refactoring that most of his functions came down to one-liners, and all of his classes were focused to an extreme, to the point of being responsible for a single action. Looking at individual classes/functions one-by-one, his code became trivial to read, but the problem this introduced is that there were so many tiny single-purpose classes, the whole thing grew to have the opposite effect and became an unmanageable mess. He understood it very well. But the rest of the team spent way too much time jumping through endless class definitions, trying to find where the real work was being done. I'm hoping those professors aren't following that model.
-
My take: A class should group related data and actions that center around a single concept. A car class might contain 4 Tire class instances as data members, an Engine instance, and a Gearbox instance. Each one has actions relevant to its operation like Engine.Start(), and Wheel.Rotate() But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like
ReadTextFileand it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be. Am I wrong here?Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
honey the codewitch wrote:
But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action
Plural? So someone claims that multiple different teachers are teaching that? And what professors? Community college? Some night school community education classes? High school?
honey the codewitch wrote:
Am I wrong here?
You are correct. But there could be more to it. For example the curriculum could be forced. Especially true for high school type education. They screw around all sorts of ways with teaching reading/math like that using experimental methods which never work. Or just an incompetent teacher. Either not trying or just one that does not have the knowledge.
-
He designed C++ not OOP
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
pkfox wrote:
He designed C++ not OOP
No one person "designed" OOP. Like many concepts it evolved over quite a long time with different people working on the concept. And at least when the "C++ Programming Language" was published for available books there were perhaps only four (or three) of them. And two were on C++. The concepts in all were basically the same.
-
Holy ... Dear Richard, you know me now for a longer time as an English non native. Can you please describe 'ablative gerund' in _very simple words_ for me? Thank you very much in advance ;)
-
Personally I can't make a bridge between ReadTextFile and the car... Anyway you example shows a classic thing, that classes are usually not 'stand alone' and in a certain way 'connected'/'depended' Your examlpe: Engine.Start() does depend on the state of the Gear. Either Engine asks the gear for 'I'm ready to start' or the gear sends a message to the engine 'hey, I'm at gear 1 (without pressed clutch), not really good to start at the moment' and so on and on and on... Abstracting the reality is usually very hard. Only my two cents.
An engine on a stand doesn't need a gear box to "start" or "run". It needs fuel and / or a battery. "Moving" is accomplished through the addition of a transmission, axels and wheels.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like ReadTextFile and it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be.
This could be the beginning of a in-depth discussion on Communication. I have to parse the beginning of your sentence very closely and pull out "I'm hearing..." part. You are hearing that from a beginning student, I believe. Now, we can't be sure 1.if the Professors are actually teaching this (that a class is one action / functionality) 2. if it is the way the student is understanding it Let's say it is the latter ( choice 2 above). Now, that may simply mean that the Professor is teaching a concept poorly -- actually doesn't believe that a class is just one action but has somehow inadvertently used words that create a students understanding to be that. From what I remember about Professors and coding, it seems likely that the Professor is actually teaching OOP wrong. Few colleges have Professors which actually program or have been on large teams which have implemented large systems using OOP. However, I could also see that the student learning about OOP sees a simple example (because all University examples are far too simple (because anything large requires too much work on the Professor's part) and assumes that because there is only one functionality in the class along with a phrase the student has heard (Single Responsibility Principle) leads the student to believe that a class must have only one action. So, here we are back at the beginning. We don't know if: 1. The professor is wrong 2. the professor is confusing and the learning lands improperly 3. The student misunderstands on her own. We're down at the bottom, writhing in the Communication pain. :rolleyes: The best thing to do is: Redirect!! And that seems to be what you are doing. Tell the student the proper use of Classes and why they can have more actions. Good luck with Communication. I'm sure that I too have added some form of communication problem while writing this up. :laugh:
Maybe the student is wresting with "code blocks" or "delegates": methods as "objects" (of "anonymous" classes). Or at least it would be fun to drop that on them. I was over the moon when I first discovered Clipper "code blocks" (DI before DI).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
I used to work with a guy who did so much refactoring that most of his functions came down to one-liners, and all of his classes were focused to an extreme, to the point of being responsible for a single action. Looking at individual classes/functions one-by-one, his code became trivial to read, but the problem this introduced is that there were so many tiny single-purpose classes, the whole thing grew to have the opposite effect and became an unmanageable mess. He understood it very well. But the rest of the team spent way too much time jumping through endless class definitions, trying to find where the real work was being done. I'm hoping those professors aren't following that model.
In that case, if you make them all static, put them in related "class libraries", it becomes manageable; like "System.Math".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
But I'm hearing that professors are teaching that classes are effectively a single action like ReadTextFile and it makes me a lot more irritated than I probably should be.
This could be the beginning of a in-depth discussion on Communication. I have to parse the beginning of your sentence very closely and pull out "I'm hearing..." part. You are hearing that from a beginning student, I believe. Now, we can't be sure 1.if the Professors are actually teaching this (that a class is one action / functionality) 2. if it is the way the student is understanding it Let's say it is the latter ( choice 2 above). Now, that may simply mean that the Professor is teaching a concept poorly -- actually doesn't believe that a class is just one action but has somehow inadvertently used words that create a students understanding to be that. From what I remember about Professors and coding, it seems likely that the Professor is actually teaching OOP wrong. Few colleges have Professors which actually program or have been on large teams which have implemented large systems using OOP. However, I could also see that the student learning about OOP sees a simple example (because all University examples are far too simple (because anything large requires too much work on the Professor's part) and assumes that because there is only one functionality in the class along with a phrase the student has heard (Single Responsibility Principle) leads the student to believe that a class must have only one action. So, here we are back at the beginning. We don't know if: 1. The professor is wrong 2. the professor is confusing and the learning lands improperly 3. The student misunderstands on her own. We're down at the bottom, writhing in the Communication pain. :rolleyes: The best thing to do is: Redirect!! And that seems to be what you are doing. Tell the student the proper use of Classes and why they can have more actions. Good luck with Communication. I'm sure that I too have added some form of communication problem while writing this up. :laugh:
It was an assignment, I think photocopied out of a book but I didn't ask.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
