OOPIsMuchBetterinTheoryThaninPractice.docVIP

OOP Is Much Better in Theory Than in Practice by Richard Mansfield Like many ideas that sound good in theory but are clumsy in practice, object-oriented programming (OOP) offers benefits only in a specialized context—namely, group programming. And even in that circumstance the benefits are dubious, though the proponents of OOP would have you believe otherwise. Some shops claim OOP success, but many Ive spoken with are still working on it. Still trying to get OOP right after ten years? Something strange is going on here. Certainly for the great majority of programmers—amateurs working alone to create programs such as a quick sales tax utility for a small business or a geography quiz for Junior—the machinery of OOP is almost always far more trouble than its worth. OOP just introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity to procedure-oriented design. Thats why very few programming books Ive read use OOP techniques (classes, etc.) in their code examples. The examples are written as functions, not as methods within objects. Programming books are trying to teach programming—not the primarily clerical and taxonomic essence of OOP. Those few books that do superimpose the OOP mechanisms on their code are, not surprisingly, teaching about the mysteries of OOP itself. Of course professional gang programming has specialized requirements. Chief among them is that the programmers dont step on each others toes. For instance, a friend who programs for one of the worlds largest software companies told me he knows precisely what hell be working on in one year. Obviously, OOP makes sense in such a bureaucratic system because it needs to be intensely clerical. Helping to manage large-scale, complex programming jobs like the one in which my friend is involved is the primary value of OOP. Its a clerical system with some built-in security features. In my view, confusing OOP with programming is a mistake. OOP is to writing a program what going through airport security is to flying. Cont