3 ms·

What would you consider solid references to learn sane OOP? I have a vague working model of object orientation but a lot of the finer details go straight over

What would you consider solid references to learn sane OOP? I have a vague working model of object orientation but a lot of the finer details go straight over my head.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
CamTin 9y ago
While Lisp is usually associated with FP practices, the CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) really helped me with getting OOP to click as a concept. Part of it is that, CLOS is just Lisp, so all of the concepts of OO programming are there with none of the syntax generally added in other OO languages. Also, the method/function names clearly name all the concepts instead of using opaque notation: SLOT-VALUE instead of dot, arrow, or double-colon notation, DEFCLASS does what it says on the tin instead of the vaguer "class ClassName { }" of C++/Java/etc. I feel like this makes it clearer what is happening. A good overview of CLOS is chapters 16 and 17 of /Practical Common Lisp/ (http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/) I've heard other people speak similarly of learning Perl's MOOSE after already being familiar with non-OO Perl. This probably is no coincidence since MOOSE is heavily inspired by CLOS.
jerf 9y ago
I'm being very serious here, with no sarcasm: Using a language that has an alternate model of OO that either simply doesn't have inheritance, or makes it relatively hard. IMHO it doesn't matter much how much you read about the differences, until you get in there it won't do much good. This is a good place to have a throwaway project on hand, because your first try is likely to be a very big mess. If you know an inheritance model and a non-inheritance model, you'll be well on your way to understanding the nuances because you'll have the experience in the field. (For reference, my personal definition of OO is pretty much any language where you can write object.method(arguments), some kind of polymorphism is made available on that, and that is either the primary or a very important element of design in the language. It's a very expansive definition because I find that having massive definition debates about what OO is to be nothing more than useless flamewars.)
arunix 9y ago
Object Thinking, by David West for the essential ideas and philosophy of sane OOP.

What would you consider solid references to learn sane OOP? I have a vague working model of object orientation but a lot of the finer details go straight over my head.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

CamTin 9y ago

While Lisp is usually associated with FP practices, the CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) really helped me with getting OOP to click as a concept. Part of it is that, CLOS is just Lisp, so all of the concepts of OO programming are there with none of the syntax generally added in other OO languages. Also, the method/function names clearly name all the concepts instead of using opaque notation: SLOT-VALUE instead of dot, arrow, or double-colon notation, DEFCLASS does what it says on the tin instead of the vaguer "class ClassName { }" of C++/Java/etc. I feel like this makes it clearer what is happening. A good overview of CLOS is chapters 16 and 17 of /Practical Common Lisp/ (http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/) I've heard other people speak similarly of learning Perl's MOOSE after already being familiar with non-OO Perl. This probably is no coincidence since MOOSE is heavily inspired by CLOS.

jerf 9y ago

I'm being very serious here, with no sarcasm: Using a language that has an alternate model of OO that either simply doesn't have inheritance, or makes it relatively hard. IMHO it doesn't matter much how much you read about the differences, until you get in there it won't do much good. This is a good place to have a throwaway project on hand, because your first try is likely to be a very big mess. If you know an inheritance model and a non-inheritance model, you'll be well on your way to understanding the nuances because you'll have the experience in the field. (For reference, my personal definition of OO is pretty much any language where you can write object.method(arguments), some kind of polymorphism is made available on that, and that is either the primary or a very important element of design in the language. It's a very expansive definition because I find that having massive definition debates about what OO is to be nothing more than useless flamewars.)

arunix 9y ago

Object Thinking, by David West for the essential ideas and philosophy of sane OOP.