内容简介:I ran across someone recently who says the way to move past object oriented programming (OOP) is to go back to simply telling the computer what to do, to clear OOP from your mind like it never happened. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I also don’t th
I ran across someone recently who says the way to move past object oriented programming (OOP) is to go back to simply telling the computer what to do, to clear OOP from your mind like it never happened. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I also don’t think it’s possible.
Object oriented programming, for all its later excesses, was a big step forward in software engineering. It made it possible to develop much larger programs than before, maybe 10x larger. Someone might counter by saying that programs had to be 10x larger because of all the overhead of OOP, but that’s not the case. OOP does add some overhead, and the amount of overhead grew over time as tools and frameworks became more complicated, but OOP made it possible to write programs that could not have been written before.
OOP provides a way for programmers to organize their code. It may not be the best way, depending on the problem, but the way to move past OOP is to replace it with another discipline. And I imagine most people who have learned and then unlearned OOP do just that, whether they realize it or not. Maybe they retain some organizational patterns that they learned in the context of OOP.
That has been my experience. I hardly ever write classes anymore; I write functions. But I don’t write functions quite the way I did before I spent years writing classes.
And while I don’t often write classes, I do often use classes that come from libraries. Sometimes these objects seem like they’d be better off as bare functions, but I imagine the same libraries would be harder to use if no functions were wrapped in objects.
I generally like functional programming, but in my experience there’s a hockey stick effort curve as you try to push the purity to 100%. James Hague said it well:
100% pure functional programing doesn’t work. Even 98% pure functional programming doesn’t work. But if the slider between functional purity and 1980s BASIC-style imperative messiness is kicked down a few notches — say to 85% — then it really does work. You get all the advantages of functional programming, but without the extreme mental effort and unmaintainability that increases as you get closer and closer to perfectly pure.
It’s possible, and a good idea, to develop large parts of a system in purely functional code. But someone has to write the messy parts thatinteract with the outside world.
以上就是本文的全部内容,希望本文的内容对大家的学习或者工作能带来一定的帮助,也希望大家多多支持 码农网
猜你喜欢:本站部分资源来源于网络,本站转载出于传递更多信息之目的,版权归原作者或者来源机构所有,如转载稿涉及版权问题,请联系我们。
JavaScript凌厉开发
张鑫 黄灯桥、杨彦强 / 清华大学出版社 / 2010 年4月 / 49.00元
本书详细介绍Ext JS框架体系结构,以及利用HTML/CSS/JavaScript进行前端设计的方法和技巧。作者为Ext中文站站长领衔的三个国内Ext JS先锋,在开发思维和开发经验上有着无可争议的功力。 本书包含的内容有Ext.Element.*、事件Observable、Ext组件+MVC原理、Grid/Form/Tree/ComboBox、Ajax缓存Store等,并照顾JavaSc......一起来看看 《JavaScript凌厉开发》 这本书的介绍吧!