Content deleted Content added
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) →Objects: Composition is a feature |
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) Move interesting stuff to the intro |
||
Line 12:
| pages = 313–343| doi = 10.1080/03081079.2010.539975
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Lewis|first1=John|last2=Loftus|first2= William|title=Java Software Solutions Foundations of Programming Design 6th ed|publisher=Pearson Education Inc.|year=2008|isbn=978-0-321-53205-3}}, section 1.6 "Object-Oriented Programming"</ref> A [[programming language]] that provides OOP features is classified as an ''OOP language'' but as the set of features that contribute to OOP is contended, classifying a language as OOP and the degree to which it supports or is OOP, are debatable. As paradigms are not mutually exclusive, a language can be [[multi-paradigm]] {{endash}} can be categorized as more than just OOP.
Sometimes, objects represent real-world things and processes in digital form.<ref>{{cite book|last=Booch|first=Grady|title=Software Engineering with Ada|year=1986|publisher=Addison Wesley|isbn=978-0-8053-0608-8|page=220|url=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grady_Booch|quote=Perhaps the greatest strength of an object-oriented approach to development is that it offers a mechanism that captures a model of the real world.}}</ref> For example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square", and "menu". An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping cart", "customer", and "product". [[Niklaus Wirth]] said, "This paradigm [OOP] closely reflects the structure of systems in the real world and is therefore well suited to model complex systems with complex behavior".<ref>{{cite journal▼
|author=[[Niklaus Wirth]]▼
|journal=[[IEEE Computer]]▼
|volume=39▼
|issue=1▼
|date=January 23, 2006▼
|pages=28–39▼
|title=Good ideas, through the looking glass▼
|series=Cover Feature▼
|doi=10.1109/MC.2006.20▼
|s2cid=6582369▼
|url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/10bd/dc49b85196aaa6715dd46843d9dcffa38358.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012215755/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/10bd/dc49b85196aaa6715dd46843d9dcffa38358.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 October 2016▼
}}</ref>▼
However, more often, objects represent abstract entities, like an open file or a unit converter. Not everyone agrees that OOP makes it easy to copy the real world exactly or that doing so is even necessary. [[Robert C. Martin|Bob Martin]] suggests that because classes are software, their relationships don't match the real-world relationships they represent.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiWqnTWsn4 |title=Uncle Bob SOLID principles |website=[[YouTube]] |date=2 August 2018}}</ref> [[Bertrand Meyer]] argues
Notable languages with OOP support include [[Ada (programming language)|Ada]], [[ActionScript]], [[C++]], [[Common Lisp]], [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]], [[Dart (programming language)|Dart]], [[Eiffel (programming language)|Eiffel]], [[Fortran|Fortran 2003]], [[Haxe]], [[Java (programming language)|Java]],{{sfn|Bloch|2018|loc=Foreword|pp=xi-xii}} [[JavaScript]], [[Kotlin (programming language)|Kotlin]], [[Logo (programming language)|Logo]], [[MATLAB]], [[Objective-C]], [[Object Pascal]], [[Perl]], [[PHP]], [[Python (programming language)|Python]], [[R (programming language)|R]], [[Raku (programming language)|Raku]], [[Ruby (programming language)|Ruby]], [[Scala (programming language)|Scala]], [[SIMSCRIPT]], [[Simula]], [[Smalltalk]], [[Swift (programming language)|Swift]], [[Vala (programming language)|Vala]] and [[Visual Basic.NET]].
Line 110 ⟶ 126:
The OOP features provided by languages varies. Below are some common features of OOP languages.<ref name="ArmstrongQuarks">Deborah J. Armstrong. ''The Quarks of Object-Oriented Development''. A survey of nearly 40 years of computing literature identified several fundamental concepts found in the large majority of definitions of OOP, in descending order of popularity: Inheritance, Object, Class, Encapsulation, Method, Message Passing, Polymorphism, and Abstraction.</ref><ref>[[John C. Mitchell]], ''Concepts in programming languages'', Cambridge University Press, 2003, {{ISBN|0-521-78098-5}}, p.278. Lists: Dynamic dispatch, abstraction, subtype polymorphism, and inheritance.</ref><ref>Michael Lee Scott, ''Programming language pragmatics'', Edition 2, Morgan Kaufmann, 2006, {{ISBN|0-12-633951-1}}, p. 470. Lists encapsulation, inheritance, and dynamic dispatch.</ref><ref name="pierce">{{Cite book|last=Pierce|first=Benjamin|title=Types and Programming Languages|publisher=MIT Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-262-16209-8|title-link=Types and Programming Languages}}, section 18.1 "What is Object-Oriented Programming?" Lists: Dynamic dispatch, encapsulation or multi-methods (multiple dispatch), subtype polymorphism, inheritance or delegation, open recursion ("this"/"self")</ref> Comparing OOP with other styles, like [[relational programming]], is difficult because there isn't a clear, agreed-upon definition of OOP.<ref name="DatePage650">C. J. Date, Introduction to Database Systems, 6th-ed., Page 650</ref>
===
An object
▲Sometimes, objects represent real-world things and processes in digital form.<ref>{{cite book|last=Booch|first=Grady|title=Software Engineering with Ada|year=1986|publisher=Addison Wesley|isbn=978-0-8053-0608-8|page=220|url=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grady_Booch|quote=Perhaps the greatest strength of an object-oriented approach to development is that it offers a mechanism that captures a model of the real world.}}</ref> For example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square", and "menu". An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping cart", "customer", and "product". [[Niklaus Wirth]] said, "This paradigm [OOP] closely reflects the structure of systems in the real world and is therefore well suited to model complex systems with complex behavior".<ref>{{cite journal
▲|author=[[Niklaus Wirth]]
▲|journal=[[IEEE Computer]]
▲|volume=39
▲|issue=1
▲|date=January 23, 2006
▲|pages=28–39
▲|title=Good ideas, through the looking glass
▲|series=Cover Feature
▲|doi=10.1109/MC.2006.20
▲|s2cid=6582369
▲|url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/10bd/dc49b85196aaa6715dd46843d9dcffa38358.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012215755/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/10bd/dc49b85196aaa6715dd46843d9dcffa38358.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 October 2016
▲}}</ref>
▲However, more often, objects represent abstract entities, like an open file or a unit converter. Not everyone agrees that OOP makes it easy to copy the real world exactly or that doing so is even necessary. [[Robert C. Martin|Bob Martin]] suggests that because classes are software, their relationships don't match the real-world relationships they represent.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiWqnTWsn4 |title=Uncle Bob SOLID principles |website=[[YouTube]] |date=2 August 2018}}</ref> [[Bertrand Meyer]] argues in ''[[Object-Oriented Software Construction]]'', that a program is not a model of the world but a model of some part of the world; "Reality is a cousin twice removed".{{sfn|Meyer|1997|p=230}} [[Steve Yegge]] noted that natural languages lack the OOP approach of strictly prioritizing ''things'' (objects/[[noun]]s) before ''actions'' (methods/[[verb]]s), as opposed to [[functional programming]] which does the reverse.<ref name="executioniKoN">{{Cite web| first = Steve| last=Yegge |title = Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns| date=30 March 2006|access-date=3 July 2010| publisher = steve-yegge.blogspot.com| url=http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html}}</ref> This can sometimes make OOP solutions more complicated than those written in procedural programming.<ref name="executioniKoN2">{{Cite web| first = Timothy| last= Boronczyk |title = What's Wrong with OOP| date=11 June 2009|access-date=3 July 2010| publisher = zaemis.blogspot.com| url=http://zaemis.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-wrong-with-oop.html}}</ref>
===Composition===
| |||