I’ve heard the term
‘Object-oriented programming’ thrown about for some time now, but I’ve never
taken the initiative to actually research the concept. Everyone I knew in high
school who took that sort of initiative in computer science seemed to end up at
Waterloo for some reason. Take that how you will. But now that I’ve given it
some effort (albeit under considerable duress), I’m starting to see the broader
layout of programming unfold before me.
Wikipedia tells me that
object-oriented programming is one of five major “paradigms”, or fundamental
methods of structuring computer program. Fun fact: The word ‘paradigm’ was
languishing in obscurity until Thomas Kuhn resurrected it in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Since then it has been co-opted by a startling variety of other fields, with
computer science obviously among their ranks.
But I digress. An object is an
abstract data type that contains within it both data and behaviour. For
instance, a class called Box could have a list of attributes corresponding to
its contents, and some methods to add contents, steal contents, or anything you
can imagine. It is the interaction of these objects that produce the function
of the overall program. Encapsulating information in this way avoids “spaghetti
code”, wherein “go to” statements that jump around within the program make the
code unreadable. Furthermore, this compartmentalization ensures that changes to
one object do not affect others.
Some people who know a lot more about this
than I do criticize OOP for trying to reduce language to classes. Steve Yegge
likens it to putting too much emphasis on the nouns in English. Paul Graham
says that OOP’s are popular because they prevent mediocre programmers from
“doing too much damage”. As a mediocre
programmer I can’t help but feel slighted by that.
Or so Wikipedia tells me. To be
honest, I’m taking what I read in this article with a grain of salt. Although I
have to give the author some credit for the use of some pretty florid language.
I particularly liked the phrase “object-oriented technology often gets mired in
the weeds”. I think the figurative language really highlights the symbolic
nature of programming in general; things representing other things, right?
I’d like to take this opportunity
to apologize for the generally sarcastic, tangential, and bombastic tone of
this entry, and for any mental anguish caused to the reader. I think it stems
from my deeper aversion to earnest self-expression, probably developed in early
childhood. It’s not your fault. Thanks for reading.
