Object-oriented programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:17, 25 January 2024

Revision as of 05:50, 25 January 2024

Line 11:

| year = 2011 | pages = 313–343}}</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>

Many of the most widely used programming languages (such as [[C++]], [[Java (programming language)|Java]],{{sfn|Bloch|2018|loc=Foreword|pp=xi-xii}} [[Python (programming language)|Python]], etc.) are [[multi-paradigm programming language|multi-paradigm]] and they support object-oriented programming to a greater or lesser degree, typically in combination with [[imperative programming]], [[procedural programming]] and [[functional programming]].

Significant object-oriented languages 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 51:

</ref> Topics such as [[data abstraction]] and [[modularity (programming)|modular programming]] were common points of discussion at this time.

Independently of later MIT work such as AED, [[Simula]] was developed during the years 1961-19671961–1967.<ref name=simuladev/> Simula introduced important concepts that are today an essential part of object-oriented programming, such as [[Class (computer programming)|class]] and [[Object (computer science)|object]], inheritance, and [[Dynamic binding (computing)|dynamic binding]].<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal|last = Holmevik|first = Jan Rune|title = Compiling Simula: A historical study of technological genesis|journal = IEEE Annals of the History of Computing|volume = 16|issue = 4|pages = 25–37|year = 1994|url = http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/simula/holmevik-simula-ieeeannals94.pdf|doi = 10.1109/85.329756|s2cid = 18148999|access-date = 3 March 2018|archive-date = 30 August 2017|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170830065454/http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/simula/holmevik-simula-ieeeannals94.pdf|url-status = dead}}</ref> The object-oriented Simula programming language was used mainly by researchers involved with [[physical modelling]], such as models to study and improve the movement of ships and their content through cargo ports.<ref name="auto"/>

{{Quote box

Line 94:

The OOP paradigm has been criticized for overemphasizing the use of objects for software design and modeling at the expense of other important aspects (computation/algorithms).<ref name="stepanov"/><ref name="hickey"/> For example, [[Rob Pike]] has said that OOP languages frequently shift the focus from [[data structure]]s and [[algorithm]]s to [[data type|types]].<ref name="RobPike">{{cite web |url=https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html |title=Less is exponentially more |last1=Pike |first1=Rob |date=25 June 2012 |access-date=1 October 2016 }}</ref> [[Steve Yegge]] noted that, as opposed to [[functional programming]]:<ref name="yegge">{{Cite web|url=http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html|title=Stevey's Blog Rants: Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns|access-date=20 May 2020}}</ref>

{{quoteblockquote|Object Oriented Programming puts the nouns first and foremost. Why would you go to such lengths to put one part of speech on a pedestal? Why should one kind of concept take precedence over another? It's not as if OOP has suddenly made verbs less important in the way we actually think. It's a strangely skewed perspective.}}

[[Rich Hickey]], creator of [[Clojure]], described object systems as overly simplistic models of the real world. He emphasized the inability of OOP to model time properly, which is getting increasingly problematic as software systems become more concurrent.<ref name="hickey">Rich Hickey, JVM Languages Summit 2009 keynote, [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey Are We There Yet?] November 2009.</ref>

Line 100:

[[Alexander Stepanov]] compares object orientation unfavourably to [[generic programming]]:<ref name="stepanov">{{Cite web| url=http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html| title=STLport: An Interview with A. Stepanov| last=Stepanov| first=Alexander| access-date=21 April 2010| author-link=Alexander Stepanov}}</ref>

{{quoteblockquote|I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras&nbsp;— families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting&nbsp;— saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all.}}

===Inheritance===

Line 139:

The "[[open/closed principle]]" advocates that classes and functions "should be open for extension, but closed for modification". [[Luca Cardelli]] has claimed that OOP languages have "extremely poor modularity properties with respect to class extension and modification", and tend to be extremely complex.<ref name="badprop"/> The latter point is reiterated by [[Joe Armstrong (programming)|Joe Armstrong]], the principal inventor of [[Erlang (programming language)|Erlang]], who is quoted as saying:<ref name="armstrongjoe">Armstrong, Joe. In ''Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming.'' Peter Seibel, ed. [http://www.codersatwork.com/ Codersatwork.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305165150/http://www.codersatwork.com/ |date=5 March 2010 }}, Accessed 13 November 2009.</ref>

{{quoteblockquote|The problem with object-oriented languages is they've got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.}}

Leo Brodie has suggested a connection between the standalone nature of objects and a tendency to [[duplicate code]]<ref>{{Cite book| url=http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/thinking-forth-ans.pdf| title=Thinking Forth| last=Brodie| first=Leo|pages=92–93 |year=1984 |access-date=4 May 2018}}</ref> in violation of the [[don't repeat yourself]] principle<ref>{{cite web| work=Category Extreme Programming| last=Hunt| first=Andrew| url=http://wiki.c2.com/?DontRepeatYourself|title=Don't Repeat Yourself| access-date=4 May 2018}}</ref> of software development.

Line 168:

=== Popularity and reception ===

[[File:Tiobeindex.png|thumb|350px|The [[TIOBE index|TIOBE]] programming language popularity index graph from 2002 to 2023. In the 2000s the object-oriented [[Java (programming language)|Java]] (orange) and the [[Procedural programming|procedural]] [[C (programming language)|C]] (dark blue) competed for the top position.]]

Many widely- used languages, such as C++, Java, and Python, provide object-oriented features. Although in the past object-oriented programming was widely accepted,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Brucker |first1=Achim D. |last2=Wolff |first2=Burkhart |title=ECOOP 2008 – Object-Oriented Programming |chapter=Extensible Universes for Object-Oriented Data Models |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |date=2008 |volume=5142 |pages=438–462 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-70592-5_19|isbn=978-3-540-70591-8 |quote=object-oriented programming is a widely accepted programming paradigm}}</ref> more recently essays criticizing object-oriented programming and recommending the avoidance of these features (generally in favor of [[functional programming]]) have been very popular in the developer community.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cassel |first1=David |title=Why Are So Many Developers Hating on Object-Oriented Programming? |url=https://thenewstack.io/why-are-so-many-developers-hating-on-object-oriented-programming/ |work=The New Stack |date=21 August 2019}}</ref> [[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]] has suggested that OOP's popularity within large companies is due to "large (and frequently changing) groups of mediocre programmers". According to Graham, the discipline imposed by OOP prevents any one programmer from "doing too much damage".<ref name="graham">{{Cite web| last=Graham| first=Paul| title=Why ARC isn't especially Object-Oriented.| url=http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html| publisher=PaulGraham.com| access-date=13 November 2009| author-link=Paul Graham (computer programmer)}}</ref> [[Eric S. Raymond]], a [[Unix]] programmer and [[open-source software]] advocate, has been critical of claims that present object-oriented programming as the "One True Solution".<ref name="Eric S. Raymond 2003"/>

Richard Feldman argues that these languages may have improved their modularity by adding OO features, but they became popular for reasons other than being object-oriented.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Feldman |first1=Richard |title=Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? |website=[[YouTube]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4&t=2069s |language=en}}</ref> In an article, Lawrence Krubner claimed that compared to other languages (LISP dialects, functional languages, etc.) OOP languages have no unique strengths, and inflict a heavy burden of unneeded complexity.<ref name="lawrence">{{Cite web| last=Krubner| first=Lawrence| title=Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end| url=http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end| publisher=smashcompany.com| access-date=14 October 2014| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141014233854/http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end| archive-date=14 October 2014| url-status=dead}}</ref> A study by Potok et al. has shown no significant difference in productivity between OOP and procedural approaches.<ref>{{Cite journal| url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~v8q/Homepage/Papers%20Old/spetep-%20printable.pdf| title=Productivity Analysis of Object-Oriented Software Developed in a Commercial Environment| last=Potok| first=Thomas|author2=Mladen Vouk |author3=Andy Rindos |journal=Software: Practice and Experience | volume=29|issue=10|pages=833–847 |year=1999 |access-date=21 April 2010| doi=10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(199908)29:10<833::AID-SPE258>3.0.CO;2-P| s2cid=57865731}}</ref> [[Luca Cardelli]] has claimed that OOP code is "intrinsically less efficient" than procedural code and that OOP can take longer to compile.<ref name="badprop">{{Cite journal| first=Luca| last=Cardelli|title=Bad Engineering Properties of Object-Oriented Languages |url=http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/BadPropertiesOfOO.html| year=1996| access-date=21 April 2010| doi=10.1145/242224.242415| journal = ACM Comput. Surv.| volume=28| issn = 0360-0300| pages = 150–es| author-link=Luca Cardelli| issue=4es| s2cid=12105785}}</ref>