Should i use oop

These have the inherited behaviors of Dog bark but also behavior unique to dogs of that subtype. Finally,we create objects of the HerdingDog type to represent the individual dogs Fluffy and Maisel. We can also create objects like Rufus that fit under the broad class of Dog but do not fit under either HerdingDog or TrackingDog. In a nutshell, classes are essentially user defined data types. Classes are where we create a blueprint for the structure of methods and attributes.

Individual objects are instantiated, or created from this blueprint. Classes contain fields for attributes, and methods for behaviors. Remember the class is a template for modeling a dog, and an object is instantiated from the class representing an individual real world thing.

Enjoying the article? Scroll down to sign up for our free, bi-monthly newsletter. Of course OOP includes objects! Objects are instances of classes created with specific data, for example in the code snippet below Rufus is an instance of the Dog class. In JavaScript objects are a type of variable. This may cause confusion, because objects can also be declared without a class template in JavaScript, as shown at the beginning. Objects have states and behaviors. Behaviors are methods, the object can undertake.

Attributes are the information that is stored. Attributes are defined in the Class template. When objects are instantiated individual objects contain data stored in the Attributes field.

For example, a puppy and a dog might be treated differently at pet camp. The birthday could define the state of an object, and allow the software to handle dogs of different ages differently.

Methods represent behaviors. When individual objects are instantiated, these objects can call the methods defined in the class. In the code snippet below, the bark method is defined in Dog class, and the bark method is called on the Rufus object. Methods often modify, update or delete data. The updateAttendance method adds a day the Dog attended the pet sitting camp. The attendance attribute is important to keep track of for billing Owners at the end of the month.

Methods are how programmers promote reusability, and keep functionality encapsulated inside an object. This reusability is a great benefit when debugging. Learn OOP without scrubbing through videos or documentation. Inheritance allows classes to inherit features of other classes. Put another way, parent classes extend attributes and behaviors to child classes.

Inheritance supports reusability. If basic attributes and behaviors are defined in a parent class, child classes can be created extending the functionality of the parent class, and adding additional attributes and behaviors.

For example, herding dogs have the unique ability to herd animals. In other words, all herding dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are herding dogs. We represent this difference by creating a child class HerdingDog from the parent class Dog , and then add the unique herd behavior.

The benefits of inheritance are programs can create a generic parent class, and then create more specific child classes as needed. This simplifies overall programming, because instead of recreating the structure of the Dog class multiple times, child classes automatically gain access to functionalities within their parent class. In the following code snippet, child class HerdingDog inherits the method bark from the parent class Dog , and the child class adds an additional method, herd.

Notice that the HerdingDog class does not have a copy of the bark method, it inherits the bark method defined in the parent Dog class. When the code calls fluffy. As your application grows though, it's that point where you're writing Step 52, you realize that it would be a lot easier if you weren't having to rewrite stuff that you've already written and could just call a module, class, object, etc. Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.

Please sign in or sign up to post. Welcome to the Treehouse Community The Treehouse Community is a meeting place for developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels to get support.

Looking to learn something new? Alena Holligan Treehouse Teacher. Object-Oriented Programming Commonly used because it allows developers to work on the same project without colliding with one another as easily. The video covered many of the advantages of OOP already, but let me outline Advantages include: Modular: Provides a clear modular structure for programs which makes it good for defining abstract datatypes where implementation details are hidden and the unit has a clearly defined interface.

Scaleable: Adding developers to a project often easier because the don't have to understand the entire code base, just the section they're working on. Adding Hardware resources can be more cost efective because you can have different resources for each modular piece. Maintainable: Makes it easy to maintain and modify existing code as new objects can be created with small differences to existing ones.

Extensible: Provides a good framework for extending a project through libraries where these components can be easily adapted and modified by the programmer. This is particularly useful for developing graphical user interfaces, or GUIs. Reusable: Each module works independently of the surrounding module. This allows you take take one section, such as the user login, and use it for other projects. Disadvantages include: The real world refuses to divide up into neat classes and subclasses.

Sometimes several objects will interact in complex ways - maybe even ways we didn't necessarily anticipate when writing the program. OOP is just gonna make more sense to some minds, and more functional or top-down is gonna make more sense to others. I am a long time Java programmer. I like the language but you really have to use OOP with great care. I find what really works well is keeping Data in their own object structures, keeping Logic well separated from data and to carefully minimize side effects as much as possible.

There is a lot to learn from Functional Programming paradigms. OOP is a tool. No more, no less. The claim that encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism are unique to OO is… questionable. Further, you can have polymorphism without inheritance. But that would not be object oriented. You really need the full complement to claim that: encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance and abstraction.

You can still mess up and end up without object oriented programming, but these four work together very well to enable a conscientious, skilled programmer to write object oriented code.

I second this. Polymorphism is simply sending a message and allowing the receivers vary their response. Inheritance is only required in strongly typed languages, and even then it can be circumvented. Once I started to think about how can I use pure functions even in my oop code I found a better way to address the pains I felt from just following basic ways of thinking about how I use objects. Is dependency injection OOP? No, but you can use it in OOP.

I personally find langs like elixir to provide even more tools that address the pains I feel when trying to maintain too much state.

The low level modules can then depend on the interface. I can remember reading that and trying to figure out how to incorporate object-ness into our pre-ANSI C-coded embedded systems. What OO did well was establish a set of patterns that devs could use for encapsulation — it established a vocabulary and some standards that people could use to describe things. It really did encourage cleaner, more readable code. Polymorphism can be useful. Inheritance too, but used improperly it encourages needless coupling.

But the way that OO encourage encapsulation is really what made it into what it became. For the most part, that was a mistake. But, again, things like UML are tools that can be used or abused.

You need to use the metaphor, the patterns and the tools that make sense for the problem at hand. CORBA is not object oriented. In fact, MSFT had a bad habit of selling software products they claimed were object oriented when in fact, they were anything but! CORBA is only one example. MFC was another. This seems destined to be a tedious discussion of little value when most OO languages make it simple to write functional and procedural code.

Do not confuse data objects with OOP, data objects exist in many functional languages in one form or another. Title Image in this blog tells us some OOP concepts. Objects are real-world entities, Class is the blueprint of Objects, For example, that plant in the title image is an object of a class, its branches are also the objects of the same class, and its sub-branches are also the objects of the same class, and so on..

That seems to be the opposite of an example of how JavaScript is becoming more functional. Thank you for the thought-provoking article! Personally, as someone who has programmed in industry, I can see why OOP makes sense; one of my jobs involved debugging and adding features to a codebase of over 50, lines of C Unfortunately, the core of the codebase was a huge struct with hundreds of members, some of which should be used or not based on a combination of enum values and strings, also struct members.

Could the same increase in code quality have been achieved with pure, functional programming, by converting the code to Haskell? Possibly, I am not sufficient of an Haskell expert to know that. But I am quite sure that OO, when applied intelligently, could have improved the situation. I agree with some other posters: OO is a tool that is applicable to some situations, using a tool well and not using it in situations where another tool would be more appropriate like trying to put a screw in a wall using a hammer is part of professional craftsmanship.

The most-loved languages in the survey you mention Rust, TypeScript, Python, Kotlin and Go all support some version of OO, but also imperative programming and some degree of functional programming. And I can understand why developers like this flexibility! Haskell and Scala seem to come from academia. I therefore hypothesize that OO languages were designed by industry programmers with experiences somewhat like mine, namely that OO is useful in the right situation, especially as codebases grow and more and more logic starts to be based on structs, not on single numbers.

But overall, thank you very much for your post, thinking about it truly gave me some new insights on Python, for example. I agree almost all points with you. OO is useufl when used in large projects. OO can be painful for small projects. OO is a gorilla with a banana when a beginning programmer wants a banana. Two reasons for me I wasted most of the time with OOP is the fact that when you learn programming in school or go to university you get it taught and as a beginning programmer you believe this is the way to program and the road you should stick with.

But then you maybe find out that computer science is a really young field and you tutors are only humans and simply do not know it better and you need to enter a new field like functional programming on your own.

It is really frustrating to see that we try to bring abstract concepts in math to students, they then ask what is it good for?

Then you say I like this abstract math stuff and want to apply it to the real world and start studing computer science just to find out that all of this stuff is irrelevant lets just start at zero and learn this OOP stuff until all this math knowledge fades away and it becomes more and more harder to switch to concepts that are based on math like FP.

Dynamic languages have polymorphism without inheritance. Typeclasses such as Haskell and Rust allow run-time polymorphism without inheritance. No one cure for all diseases. Same here. No one programming paradigm for effectively solving all programming problems. Localize a problem and grab a best tool for fixing it. This is the answer that makes the most sense. OOP does not make sense in some cases, but does in others. Use the right tool or methodology for the job.

Private encapsulation helps with this. As for inheritance and class interfaces, a common problem is that you rarely can predict all future use-cases for derived classes upon designing the base class. So it should be used with caution and you must allow the whole class family tree to get modified in future maintenance — otherwise inheritance might cause cumbersome interfaces.

Above all, apply the KISS principle when designing. Class charts and UML diagrams etc tend to be all about the latter, often forgetting the former. What percentage of developers could explain why a switch statement is a code smell and what OO replacement would be? IBM said it could not be done, but we did it. OOP was very important to the success of the project. I think one of the most important results of OOP languages is that it moves the call target out of the function.

Well, imagine a C codebase with hundreds of functions and no encapsulation. What do I do? I go consult the docs? Can it be done? Yes, but sometimes, especially in an unfamiliar codebase, it can be extremely difficult to get your bearings. That, more than anything else, is what I think contributes to the massive productivity that we get with languages like C , and JavaScript today. Now, all the other tenets of OOP are useful too, but I think the issue is that the examples used to teach those concepts, especially inheritance and polymorphism, are often silly if not downright bad designs.

For me, the click-bait-y, hyperbolic title detracts from the credibility of this article. Guess it is still. Or not. At least in some corners. Mostly used Lisp in school. You can write bad code in any language, using any technique. In my work, I have seen a lot of bad code from others. Fault was not the language or approach. Over the long run, your average programmer writes bad to hideous code. You need a more skilled programmer to prevent software rot.

Over time, the more skilled programmers are pulled off old code to work on new things. So the old software slowly rots. The problem is with the programmers. Where Scala truly shines is in its powerful support for OOP.

I would argue that only a tiny fraction of the code that is deployed in the real world is object-oriented. In fact, both Java and C make it incredibly hard to write object-oriented code, if not plain impossible. Guy L. The orgin idea of OOP was to solve the problem of spagetthi code of the procedural programming: A change to a data structure often leads to change many files and code. If you take a look on real world java projects e.

They still follow the procedural programming: fetch data getter , calculate, store data setter. Is it also not surprising that such projects produces spagetthi code and are really bad to understand and to maintain. My static code analysis is to count grep the getter and setter per line of a project. At the beginning i was also blinded from the ideas of polymorphism, inheritance, multi-inheritance, late binding and the discussion about what are good and OOP-Patterns GangOfFour.

Information hiding? Yes, that means private fields!? Cook, but it has been known for far longer than since Of those folks, all lack the fundamentals of what OODA actually is and held tight to functional programming the only form of programming they understood from a several decades before.

Perhaps because they apply it correctly, perhaps because they were properly trained in it, or perhaps because they tend to work on sophisticated complex systems that tend to demand encapsulation, data abstraction and such.

Could you please fix your very irritating and blatantly untrue title? Why people dislike OOP? Is that actually true? Our industry tends to have some stereotypes and from time to time they suddenly claim to like one approach or another, there is no silver bullet, each approach has pros and cons, live with it.

According to Uncle Bob Robert C. Martin , only polymorphism is really a feature of OOP. He claims that C had perfect encapsulation with the separation of header files and encapsulation files. Inheritance was also possible by the use of pointers in structs.

I believe the reason why OOP projects go wrong is because of a lack of knowledge, experience and discipline on the part of developers. Then, when they learn about interfaces, they use them everywhere, even when not needed. Finding the right abstractions and the right level of abstraction is an art and requires experience. Same thing for Design Patterns. Developers go from being ignorant about them to using them everywhere. An experienced developer only use them when needed and know which one to apply and when.

It might be due to the fact that half the developers have less than 5 years of experience. Who hates OOP? Are people having anger management issues? Another tagline — if everyone hates death why is still so widespread? In fact, I love it. I am sure that without OOP, programming would be harder and more error-prone. I was programming in the 80s.

OOP was a revelation. Before OOP, you had libraries of functions. You had to keep track of which functions were allowed to use which structures. If you needed a new structure that was similar to, but slightly different from your old structure, you had to copy it line-for-line to the new structure — meticulously maintaining the order of the members. I think the writer has it all backwards.

We got OOP and were so relieved with the simplicity of the languages. It was not the very first OOP language, but it was the first one to become widespread, so the problems with it showed up far better than in earlier languages like Simula. He openly admitted, for example, that making it so highly back-compatible with C made the language a lot uglier than it had to be.

It made support for OOP ways more cumbersome than it had to be, too. Another installment in the series of misguided articles denigrating OOP. I am surprised it is published on stackexchange, a network that is itself powered by an OO language. A lot of commenters have already pointed out the usefulness of OOP paradigm in terms of human readability and understanding. I started my career working on ATM, and have a deep cynicism towards over-hyped things as a result.

There are some nice philosophical arguments as to why functional programming is wonderful, but they tend to ignore the real world, which is stateful. Well, Perl and Visual Basic did too, around the same time frame, which is probably part of the reason why despite their horribleness they remain far more popular than Haskell or Scala. You will not be surprised to learn that when engineers have a tool at hand that hides complexity, that they often end up building very complex things!

Take our short survey. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. General programming question. When to use OOP? Ask Question. Asked 12 years ago. Active 12 years ago.

Viewed 11k times. My program needs to do 2 things. Extract stuff from a webpage. Do stuff with a webpage. However, there are many webpages, such as Twitter and Facebook. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. You're perspective isn't right. Change your thinking. Lott S. Lott k 75 75 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. Alex Martelli Alex Martelli k gold badges silver badges bronze badges.