|
|
|
|
|
|
by robee
5569 days ago
|
|
|
Object Oriented programming exists because it is how humans conceptualize the world around them. Humans think in objects and actions on, in and between objects. OOP is a translation of natural thinking into systems and behaviors. Why is this a bad thing, especially for learning? I guess my question is, why does OOP and an natural translation between the real world and the code world lead to this discussion and a certain level of condescension around utilizing the concepts of OOP? |
|
|
But note that, in everyday life, relationships exist mostly between objects that would have been instances of unrelated classes in OOP. For example, my SCREEN IS ON TOP of the TABLE; I (a human being) AM SITTING on a CHAIR; a CAR IS ON the ROAD; I am TYPING on THE KEYBOARD; the COFFEE MACHINE BOILS WATER.
We think in terms of bivalent (sometimes trivalent, as, for example in, "I gave you flowers") verbs where the verb is the action (relation) that operates on two objects to produce some result/action. Contrast that with OOP where you first have to find one object and tell it to perform some action on another object. The way of thinking is shifted from actions/verbs operating on nouns to nouns operating on nouns, which is highly unnatural for me. It is as if everything is being said in passive voice, e.g., "the keyboard is being typed on by me".