Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation tutorial

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by thaumaturgy on Monday August 22, 2011 @08:07PM (#2914728)

Way back when I was first learning OOP, the typical "car extends vehicle" examples caused me not to see the practical point of OOP for a long time. I still resist using object-oriented approaches except in cases where the code demands it. (A feature, not a bug?) And, these days, if I do use OOP in places in the code, it's for encapsulation -- which is only a style consideration -- so the "car extends vehicle" example still doesn't apply.

I think a simple example from GUI programming would do much better. How about window classes? I did something like this recently:

    class Window {
        public method show()
        public method title(newTitle)
        public method close()
    }

Easy enough. What if I want a modal window though? Almost everything in it would be the same as a regular window, except I might need to do some things slightly different for show()ing and close()ing the window. Aha! A perfect example of an appropriate time to create a subclass:

    public class ModalWindow extends Window {
        public method show()
        public method close()
    }

Programming tends to attract practical individuals. I think teaching "car extends vehicle" then is usually going to cause one of two results: either a student that then uses that approach all the time, even in cases where it's not warranted, because they don't understand when it's appropriate and when it's not; or a pragmatic student that resists using it because the given examples don't apply to anything that they're actually going to have any chance of working on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by yoyar on Monday August 22, 2011 @10:05PM (#2915036)

I don't think so. In a windowing library you would do better to have the IWindow interface and have both Window and ModalWindow implement IWindow. Decorator then is appropriate so that ModalWindow can wrap Window and add the desired functionality. I would not subclass Window in this case. This leaves Window and ModalWindow totally substitutable and totally decoupled. If you extend you couple Window and ModalWindow. Less coupling will likely serve you better.

I eschew inheritance except for when two objects or libraries are very much the same thing but the implementations are different. Just an example, where I might want to have the opportunity to use two different PDF libraries.

Further, there's a case where a number of objects share some common methods and you may decide to implement an AbstractWindow where those methods can live. But, you may find that Aspect programming works better in that case.

Generally, and perhaps surprisingly you shouldn't use inheritance in most cases. But inheritance is nonetheless a very important part of OOP.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by mweatherill on Monday August 22, 2011 @11:10PM (#2915175)

Why would you want inheritance for different PDF libraries? This seems like interface to me - the DOM interfaces are an appropriate analogy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by yoyar on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @09:45AM (#2916506)

Quite right. I didn't express that very well. An interface is appropriate with implementations for each separate library.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by georgieporgie on Monday August 22, 2011 @08:34PM (#2914791)

I think a simple example from GUI programming would do much better. How about window classes?

It's funny, because OOP came my sphere of awareness around the same time that desktop software was beginning to use it for extensible GUIs. I'm talking about Turbo Pascal's Turbo Vision, and whatever Turbo C++ had.

That actually slowed down my comprehension of OOP. I thought OOP was for GUI work. OOP added so much complexity to the GUI code, and the GUI code added so much complexity to the OOP concepts, that it actually set me back by quite a bit! :-)

Mind you, it didn't help that, just as I was grasping crucial OOP concepts (e.g. a pointer to base class can point to an instance of child class), my instructor told me that was wrong and that I didn't understand OOP...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by thaumaturgy on Monday August 22, 2011 @10:22PM (#2915071)

Actually, you're right. I started with OOP around the same time (sounds like), and I remember having trouble grasping the benefits of OOP then because, like you say, it was much more complex all the way 'round. I was used to just calling functions which would return a struct and then passing that struct to other functions, which was straightforward and easy to keep track of.

> ...my instructor told me that was wrong and that I didn't understand OOP...

Ugh.

I wonder how it should be taught then? Looking at the comments in this thread, it looks like a lot of people are simply choosing to use it in ways that make sense to them. Is there a universally-agreed-upon use case for OOP? If not, is there anything wrong with just teaching it as one of many tools, and letting students sort it out on their own?

I've tutored a few kids on programming. OOP has been my least favorite part every time. I honestly have no idea how to approach it as an occasional instructor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by mattdeboard on Monday August 22, 2011 @08:37PM (#2914799)

Yeah, I guess if I learned OOP with Java I'd hate it too. I look at phrases like "public class ModalWindow extends Window" and am very thankful I started with Python (and have learned Java where necessary, mostly to support Clojure).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by thaumaturgy on Monday August 22, 2011 @10:00PM (#2915018)

That was pseudocode, not Java. This is a discussion of concepts, not languages. I don't participate in discussions about languages because they are pointless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye, shitty "Car extends Vehicle" object-orientation ... by mattdeboard on Monday August 22, 2011 @10:24PM (#2915078)

Convincing pseudocode! It looks like Java to a layman!

[ Parent | on HN ]