Object-orientated programming is the concept of designing code around simple, efficient, and reusable objects that can work together to accomplish a larger goal.
Removing the ‘fluff’ from this sentence, we get: “Object-orientated programming is designing code around objects,” which looks awfully close to a tautology.
Mmm… well, the “fluff” was there for a reason. “Simple” means easy to understand and not particularly complex; “efficient” means the object does one thing and one thing well; “reusable” means the object is not tied down into any particular infrastructure; “work together to accomplish a larger goal” means that an object is designed to work with other objects, not designed to solve a big problem. I suppose I could have expounded on the terms but I didn’t figure anyone cared enough.
I’m still not terribly convinced anyone actually cares enough.
The qualifiers—simple, efficient, reusable—distinguish good OO code from bad OO code. They have nothing to do with OO in general. Bad programmers will write object oriented code that is complex, inefficient, and non-reusable. Likewise, “working together to accomplish a goal” applies just as much to subroutines in an imperative language or functions in a functional programming language.
Removing the ‘fluff’ from this sentence, we get: “Object-orientated programming is designing code around objects,” which looks awfully close to a tautology.
Mmm… well, the “fluff” was there for a reason. “Simple” means easy to understand and not particularly complex; “efficient” means the object does one thing and one thing well; “reusable” means the object is not tied down into any particular infrastructure; “work together to accomplish a larger goal” means that an object is designed to work with other objects, not designed to solve a big problem. I suppose I could have expounded on the terms but I didn’t figure anyone cared enough.
I’m still not terribly convinced anyone actually cares enough.
The qualifiers—simple, efficient, reusable—distinguish good OO code from bad OO code. They have nothing to do with OO in general. Bad programmers will write object oriented code that is complex, inefficient, and non-reusable. Likewise, “working together to accomplish a goal” applies just as much to subroutines in an imperative language or functions in a functional programming language.
Hmm, parent is at −2. I would be curious how anybody could actually believe (and justify) that OOP