OOP Oversold??

[dancer]

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to go,
but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had used
on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.

If you want to use interpreted languages, instead of compiled .Net languages
which rely on OOP, you're quite free to do so, in the understanding that you're
going to give up a lot of efficiency.

IIRC, .Net provides about 3-4 times the throughtput that ASP did.
That is achieved by using OOP, assembly compilation and JIT compilation.

I wouldn't give that up easily, just to stay inside the "traditional" programming realm.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to go, but is there anybody out there who
believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net that uses the TRADITIONAL method of
programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had used on occasion. On first blush it seemed
LOGICAL, as other programming languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my code is all
wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the OOP? (**Using it only for web
applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

dancer wrote:

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.

Absolutely.

I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to go,
but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

No, not for many years. OOP has been widely used for about 20 years, and
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it will be around for another 20.

Even if something new and revolutionary comes up tomorrow, it will be
several years until it's even developed into something commercially useful.

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

Not really. There are some procedural languages, but they still all work
with the .NET framework, which is object oriented.

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had used
on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

VB.NET is an object oriented language, so you can't use it completely
without object orientation. You can get by without using much of the OOP
features in your code, but everything that you use in the framework is
still object oriented.

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

Rather using a completely different system... ASP.NET without OOP is a
little like driving a Ferrari and refusing to use anything but the first
gear.

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.

Depends how serious you are about being a .NET developer...

I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to
go, but is there anybody out there who believes differently?

It's not the only way to go, but it's by far the most efficient. Next time
you have to drive anywhere, try doing it in reverse gear - you'll still get
there next week... Of course, by the time you get there, everyone else will
already have gone...

1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

Not me.

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

All .NET languages program against the .NET Framework, otherwise they
wouldn't be .NET languages. The .NET Framework is object-orientated - ipso
facto...

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had
used on occasion.

Possibly the worst reason you could have had for choosing VB.NET, IMO...
Other than some syntactical similarities, VB.NET bears absolutely no
relationship whatsoever to any flavour of Basic...

On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming languages I had
used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my code is all
wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

If by 'wrong' you mean 'highly inefficient', then I would agree with whoever
told you that...

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

Virtually everything you have written so far in VB.NET uses object
oientation to some degree...

5. Do I need to be in a different forum?

No, you need a different development environment. Try PHP...
--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

[Chris Fulstow]

On Sep 27, 6:33 am, "dancer" <[e-mail]:

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to go,
but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

OOP is probably here to stay, at least for a while, because it's so
popular. It's worth the effort because when it's used right it works
fantastically. The problem is that many developers don't quite get
what OOP is about, and create vast unmaintainable class hierarchies
with too many dependencies.

Microsoft has developed a research language called F# which is dubbed
"pragmatically-orientented", it has elements of object-oriented,
functional and procedural languages. Maybe an indication of things to
come and a shift away from OOP.
http://research.microsoft.com/fsharp/fsharp.aspx

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

If by traditional you mean procedural/imperative like C, Pascal, Perl
or PHP then you can use VB.NET or C# in a fairly similar fashion,
without bothering too much with OOP constructs like inheritance,
classes, abstraction, polymorphism etc. You could just put all your
functions in modules or static/shared classes. You'll still be using
lots of objects from the .NET Framework, but you can keep the design
of your application more "traditional". Although OOP zealots would
sneer at this, a well written procedural application is sometimes
better than a bad OOP one. However, OOP is definitely worth the
effort when you do it right.

Chris

[clintonG]

The principles of OOP will persist forever and are invaluable. The
implementation of all modern programming lanaguges is becoming more and more
declarative OOP principles not withstanding.. I have this nagging insight
that you may be selling used cars someday.

Ans I also think its awfully presumptuous of you to use a phoney email
handle with a microsoft top level domain when da****@shitforbrains.com would
work just as well. At least the spambots go nowhere because they can't ping
Microsoft's DNS servers.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/


"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to
go, but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had
used on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[sloan]

If your software does the same thing today, and the same thing tomorrow, and
the same thing 3 years from now and doesn't change/enhance over time, then
sure, abandon OOP.
//

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)//

Yes it is possible. Heck, I'd say some people who think "Hey I wrote public
class Employee", and sincey they're using VB.Net, they think they're using
OO.
Creating a bunch of concrete objects is not OO programming.
The cost of software is in the maintenance. Not necessarily the development
costs.
This is why IMHO, robust software (not just good, but good and robust)
software is based on good OO design, and good OOP.

I'd suggest the book "Pragmatic Programmer".
I'm not saying there isn't a market for non OO code. There will be.

But I don't think OOP is going anywhere.
.........


"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to
go, but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had
used on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[Nick Chan]

it is possible to use 'traditional' way in asp.net
u'll have stuff like

<#include header>
dim k = getConn
if CheckUser()
if CheckThat()
bla bla
<#include ../footer>

u know, very asp-like.

there are many successful sites/company which use the above method,
successful I mean by easily understandable, maintain, change, upgrade,
deploy, move
OOP does not neccessarily mean quality

(thout i personally use 99% OOP in my asp.net projects)
On Sep 27, 4:33 am, "dancer" <[e-mail]:

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to go,
but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had used
on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[darrel]

Ans I also think its awfully presumptuous of you to use a phoney email

handle with a microsoft top level domain when da****@shitforbrains.com
would work just as well. At least the spambots go nowhere because they
can't ping Microsoft's DNS servers.

Good ol' Clinton. Tactful as ever. Always looking out for poor ol'
Microsoft. ;o)

-Darrel

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message
news:O$****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Dim strConn As String = ("Provider=Microsoft.Jet.Oledb.4.0;Data Source=" &
Server.Mappath("~\Acc.mdb") & ";")

Er... surely not!!!!!

http://www.wheelers.com/Acc.mdb
--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

[tomisarobot]

yea, its oversold. doesn't mean its worthless or bad even. as you
can see people take on the 'cold, dead hands' position, so i dont
think you'll see it go away. even if those same people don't use it
correctly. i kinda hate asp/c#/vb for OOP because of properties.
they make it convenient and even necessary at times to write bad
object code.

paraphrasing Paul Graham "OOP is a way to write maintainable spaghetti
code"

he thought it was a detractor, i think thats a positive.

[dancer]

What language do you use for OOP that doesn't use properties?

<to*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@w3g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...

yea, its oversold. doesn't mean its worthless or bad even. as you
can see people take on the 'cold, dead hands' position, so i dont
think you'll see it go away. even if those same people don't use it
correctly. i kinda hate asp/c#/vb for OOP because of properties.
they make it convenient and even necessary at times to write bad
object code.

paraphrasing Paul Graham "OOP is a way to write maintainable spaghetti
code"

he thought it was a detractor, i think thats a positive.

[Ian Semmel]

OOp is an evolutionary concept which developed through necessity as
programs got larger and more complicated.

The 'traditional' approach to programming, if one goes back 40 years or
so, was the 'spaghetti' program, which had virtually no procedures and
was full of conditionals and goto's. The terminology came about because
of the lines programmers would draw on printouts as they traced the
program flow.

Following this came 'structured programing' (see Yourden et al) where
basically goto's were eliminated and programs were written from the top
down as a series of procedure calls with 'whiles' and 'do's' etc. This
was a self-imposed discipline which was not inherit in any languages (eg
it was used extensively in cobol).

It was not really until the development of c++ with its ability to
create objects that OOP came into its own. OOP allows the encapsulation
of code to make it readily re-usable and extendable.

Now is asp.net oop ? It probably can be argued that it is at the asp
server level, but I reckon that it is a bit of a dog's breakfast. You
have html pages, xml in .config files, c#/vb codefiles all making
contributions with the code atomised and scattered around all over the
place. This is the trouble with 'drag and drop' visual designers which
destroy oop for ease-of-use (imo).

-----Original Message-----
From: dancer [mailto:da****@microsoft.com]
Posted At: Thursday, 27 September 2007 6:33 AM
Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
Conversation: OOP Oversold??
Subject: OOP Oversold??

I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way
to go,
but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change
in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in
ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had
used
on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told
my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic,

without

the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without
somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[tomisarobot]

OOp is an evolutionary concept which developed through necessity as

programs got larger and more complicated.

is that why Design Patterns, arguably the seminal OOP design book is
all 'translated' from 40yr+ old functional programming. Nothing is
new, just different sheep's clothing.

What language do you use for OOP that doesn't use properties?

properties are part of the .NET framework, its not really avoidable.
a property is just a getter/setter. get/set is usually bad object
design. it creates a massive amount of surface area which isn't
maintainable and usually breaks encapsulation.

http://www.google.com/search?q=googl...0setter%20evil

Not that .NET is the only one that is guilty of this sin, its just
they celebrate it.

If you stick to the basics of OOP and mind your p's and q's its a
beautiful construct, but it has its limits just like any other
programming practice.

[George Ter-Saakov]

Answers (my opinion).

1. it might change but I do not see how at the present. so nothing in a
near future.

2. Why? The whole point to switching to ASP.NET is to use OOP. Which is kind
of called "traditional" for me for 10 years now.

3. You just make your life harder but not using OOP. You can as well start
programming using asm (assembler language). Do not expect find any
followers. PS: Do yourself a favor. switch to C#. While languages are 100%
identical in "abilities" the VB compiler still oriented for novices and
decides a lot of thing for you which leads to unexpected behavior in big
projects.

4. Did not understand a question. Actually I fail to understand how you
using ASP.NET without OOP.

George

"dancer" <da****@microsoft.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I haven't given up yet, but I'm wondering if OOP is worth the effort.
I know that almost everybody in this forum thinks OOP is the only way to
go, but is there anybody out there who believes differently?
1. Is there anybody who believes that programming patterns will change in
the near future and leave OOP behind?

2. I *love* Asp.net. Is there any language to use presently in ASP.net
that uses the TRADITIONAL method of programming?

3. I chose VB.Net to learn because it looked similar to other vb I had
used on occasion. On first blush it seemed LOGICAL, as other programming
languages I had used in the past. And it is....... until I am told my
code is all wrong because it doesn't use the oop processes.

Is it possible to program with VB.net using traditional logic, without the
OOP? (**Using it only for web applications**)

4. If number 3 is true, who can tell me how to get help without somebody
insisting on OOP?

5. Do I need to be in a different forum? If so, Where?

[John Saunders [MVP]]

<to*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

>OOp is an evolutionary concept which developed through necessity as
programs got larger and more complicated.

is that why Design Patterns, arguably the seminal OOP design book is
all 'translated' from 40yr+ old functional programming. Nothing is
new, just different sheep's clothing.

I sort of felt the same way when I first read Design Patterns. It was as
though they were saying that "all real programmers must use these design
patterns". This made me ask, "so, what have _I_ been for the past 25 years?"

They also acted as though they had created these patterns, when I had been
using many of them, without the fancy names, for years.

The second time I read the book, I realized that they were saying that they
had studied what real developers were using, abstracted that, and then wrote
that down in the book. They were actually saying that I had been a "real
programmer" for years, and that they had looked over my shoulder (and many
other shoulders) and wrote down what they saw.

>What language do you use for OOP that doesn't use properties?

properties are part of the .NET framework, its not really avoidable.
a property is just a getter/setter. get/set is usually bad object
design. it creates a massive amount of surface area which isn't
maintainable and usually breaks encapsulation.

http://www.google.com/search?q=googl...0setter%20evil

This article must be talking about the Java programming style that creates a
getter and setter for every private instance variable. That _is_ a sin. The
solution to not expose your implementation is - to not expose your
implementation!

By replacing direct member variable references with references to a getter
or setter, this "properties" pattern helps to _hide_ implementation details!
The names, types, etc., of the private date can change, as long as the
property signature doesn't change. You might even change the implementation
to not _have_ instance variables for each property, instead delegating the
property to an instance of another class. The caller will not be the wiser.
This supports implementation hiding, one of the most important aspects of
OO.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Saunders | MVP - Windows Server System - Connected System Developer

[tomisarobot]

By replacing direct member variable references with references to a getter

or setter, this "properties" pattern helps to _hide_ implementation details!

my point was that a property is an implementation detail. just
because the signature is consistent doesn't make it less a getter/
setter :) My personal opinion that properties are exactly the java
programming style of which you speak. I didn't like it in java, I
don't like it in C#.

You are quite right about not exposing it as the alternative. All the
syntactic sugar in the world won't overcome the necessity of crude
discipline. If thats the case though, then whats the downside of
using a typeless lang :)

[John Saunders [MVP]]

<to*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

>By replacing direct member variable references with references to a
getter
or setter, this "properties" pattern helps to _hide_ implementation
details!

my point was that a property is an implementation detail. just
because the signature is consistent doesn't make it less a getter/
setter :) My personal opinion that properties are exactly the java
programming style of which you speak. I didn't like it in java, I
don't like it in C#.

You're missing my point. I consider it a bad idea to create a getter/setter
for every instance variable. Instead, properties should be used as part of
the public contract of the class. As such, they don't necessarily have
anything to do with the implementation. Just because there's a property
doesn't imply that there's an instance variable behind it. You also can't
assume that calling the getter does nothing more than return instance data,
or that a setter only sets instance data. A getter might load data from a
database if it hadn't already been loaded. A setter might set a "dirty" flag
in addition to setting a backing field.

Yet the caller doesn't need to know any of that. The question of how the
getter and setter are implemented is an implementation detail. The fact that
the getter gets something (and presumably has no visible side effects) or
that the setter sets something (presumably such that the getter would
subsequently return that same value) is all that the client needs to know.

That's encapsulation, not an implementation detail.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Saunders | MVP - Windows Server System - Connected System Developer

[Shelly]

"John Saunders [MVP]" <john.saunders at trizetto.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

<to*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

>>By replacing direct member variable references with references to a
getter
or setter, this "properties" pattern helps to _hide_ implementation
details!

my point was that a property is an implementation detail. just
because the signature is consistent doesn't make it less a getter/
setter :) My personal opinion that properties are exactly the java
programming style of which you speak. I didn't like it in java, I
don't like it in C#.

You're missing my point. I consider it a bad idea to create a
getter/setter for every instance variable. Instead, properties should be
used as part of the public contract of the class. As such, they don't
necessarily have anything to do with the implementation. Just because
there's a property doesn't imply that there's an instance variable behind
it. You also can't assume that calling the getter does nothing more than
return instance data, or that a setter only sets instance data. A getter
might load data from a database if it hadn't already been loaded. A setter
might set a "dirty" flag in addition to setting a backing field.

Yet the caller doesn't need to know any of that. The question of how the
getter and setter are implemented is an implementation detail. The fact
that the getter gets something (and presumably has no visible side
effects) or that the setter sets something (presumably such that the
getter would subsequently return that same value) is all that the client
needs to know.

That's encapsulation, not an implementation detail.

Very well said!

Shelly