TIFU by not using objects in my object-oriented programming coursework

lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/4d9c6d4c-ab34-4509-a937-f…

submitted 2 weeks ago by Hellfire103@lemmy.ca

A screenshot of my object-less Java code, open in Eclipse under Sway on Arch Linux, using the Dracula UI theme.
65

Log in to comment

Hot Top New
LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago

I hate that schools basically teach students to over use classes for everything especially by using Java as a teaching language and then they get into the real world or grad school and we have to unteach them those terrible habits.

I'm so glad a lot of the newer languages (Rust, Go, Zig, C3, V) don't have classes in them at all.

reply
29
Eager Eagle@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

Tbh if the average grad school student overused object oriented stuff they would produce vastly better code than the status quo.

reply
11
LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

I strongly disagree.

reply
7
Eager Eagle@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago

I've seen plenty of grad student code, abundance of OOP concepts was never an issue. Complete lack of any structure on the other hand....

reply
1
Chais@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago

You can't teach experience.

reply
2
Kache@lemm.ee a week ago, edited a week ago

Bad abstraction is worse than no abstraction

If the code is going to poorly organized, I'd prefer it to just be one single gigantic standalone script than some wrong and misleading arrangement of objects or functions that adds more complexity than they solve

reply
1
HStone32@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

I'm currently taking the very last CS class my major requires. I can't wait to leave OOP behind and focus on hardware completely.

reply
10
CausticFlames@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago

where do you plan to go to start that off after school?

reply
2
HStone32@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

Either microcontrollers, operating systems, or something else involving RISC-V. That's still a ways off though.

reply
3
Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org 2 weeks ago

Strings are Objects, Doubles are Objects (that are than unboxed into primutives doubles)...

reply
13
tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago

You did the right thing. OOP was invented by people who were worried about their job security, to obstruct others from understanding their code.

reply
-10
Lightor@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

OOP is pretty readable though. What would be the alternative, functional programming with no ORM?

reply
19
electricprism@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago

Right, most things are a fine thing in moderation.

reply
5
tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago

Well, bad code is bad code regardless of the paradigm. I've just had bad experiences rewriting some horrible OOP codebases and opted out to use as much functional style as C# allowed me to.

The main problem, as I see it, is that OOP encourages unnecessary abstractions and inheritance. These should be used as little as possible, because they typically increase complexity and make code harder to read and untangle. As an example, I've seen people define interfaces that don't essentially define anything.

Another problem is that OOP encourages mutable member variables. It's very annoying to try to understand code where class C inherits from class B that inherits from class C. Good luck debugging when the methods of C modify a variable declared in A in subtle ways.

As an idea OOP is very appealing. When I was younger, I would be thrilled to start designing a class hierarchy and interfaces when encountering a new programming challenge. Now I just try to think how to make things as simple and modular as possible.

Edit: of course bad functional code is also bad code. It's also very annoying to try to understand code where functions pass badly named functions around as parameters and use 10 function compositions in a sequence.

reply
3
LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

Obfuscation Oriented Programming as I call it

reply
7
marzhall@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

Damn I'm stealing that

reply
2
ddplf@szmer.info 2 weeks ago

Good, OOP can suck my balls

reply
-7
vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago

Balls.suck() is the correct syntax.

reply
12
RagingToad@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago

Don't you need to declare new Balls() first? Or do you suck() Balls static?

reply
5
xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago 
BallsFactory ballsFactory = new BallsFactory();
ballsFactory.setSuckable(true);
Balls balls = ballsFactory.create();
reply
9
whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago, edited 2 weeks ago

All of this is *okay*, but it's not production ready. This is what real production code looks like:

SuckableFactory suckableFactory = new SuckableFactory();
Suckable balls = suckableFactory
    .setShape(SuckableShapes.round)
    .setCount(2)
    .create();

SuctionProvider mouth = SuctionProvider.getInstance();

SuckerFactory suckerFactory = new SuckerFactory();
Sucker sucker = SuckerFactory.create():

sucker.setSuctionProvider(mouth);
sucker.setSuckable(balls);
sucker.setIntensity(SuckerSuctionIntensities.medium);
sucker.suckSuckable();
reply
9
whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago

Python port:

from ballsucker import suck
suck()
reply
13
vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago

Or I didn't using the correct naming convention!

reply
3
luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago

Actually, it would be OOP.suck(ddplf.getBalls())

reply
2