5 ms·

My rule of thumb with OOP (of which I am very proud): if a bunch of code needs to retain state, make it an object, but if not, make it a function. Also, in a

My rule of thumb with OOP (of which I am very proud): if a bunch of code needs to retain state, make it an object, but if not, make it a function. Also, in a class, you should either have glorified getter/setters (to set the state, possibly in complicated ways) or stateless functions (to execute algorithms). This approach makes it far easier to test, since you have less set up and tear down. To teach object oriented programming as if it is theoretically foundational, or should precede simpler concepts is a nice bit of foolishness that lasted from excitement over Smalltalk to, say, last week. I think the blossoming of GUI's -- which have A LOT of state -- is the historic reason for the excitement over OOP, not any theoretical advantage to OOP.

dustingetz 16y ago
nice note correlating GUIs with historic excitement over OOP. "if a bunch of code needs to retain state, make it an object" well, a FP wizard might argue that most problems don't need stateful code to solve -- our decision to use stateful patterns is an implementation detail.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  I'm all about FP, and find it lovely, but I've never seen a coherent explanation of an FP solution to GUIs. What is the FP answer to MVC? What does a modern GUI application design look like, if not OOP?
  - wynand 16y ago
    I'll hazard a possibly bad answer. MVC is not inherently OO - it's more about sending messages which, although a feature of modern OO (Alan Kay even said that he should have called OO Message-Oriented programming), is not its defining feature (as we see it used today). Since the Model, the View and the Controller are just continually processing and sending messages, you could easily implement them as processes (say as in Erlang). A processes's state is then retained in immutable structures passed to recursive invocations of its main message loop (sorry if this sounds opaque - I'd recommend seeing how it's done in Erlang). Another GUI approach to FP that is being researched is functional reactive programming. There is a neat Javascript implementation called FlapJax. You could probably argue that FRP is a generalization of MVC (though I'll hedge my statement since I'm not 100% sure of this).
derefr 16y ago
I would say that the naturalistic fallacy is at play as well. If you have a business domain, and you want to model it as an algorithm, your first inclination—not knowing any computer science—will likely be to model each business object as, well, an object. A Store with Cashiers and a CashRegister and Products and UPCCodes, et al. And, surprisingly, using OOP, this works—although certainly not optimally. Until, of course, you try to build something like a compiler, which doesn't have real-world objects to equivocate to—and you find yourself screwed.
Peaker 16y ago
> I think the blossoming of GUI's -- which have A LOT of state I don't think GUI's have to have a lot of state. I wrote a Haskell library (https://github.com/Peaker/vtywidgets https://github.com/Peaker/vtywidgets) which can serve as a proof-of-concept of a "stateless GUI". The idea is that a widget is a pure function like (in pseudo-Haskell syntax): input_from_program -> (output_to_user, Map input_from_user (documentation, output_to_program)) A "Map" is a dictionary. It's like a function, but its domain can also be enumerated so we can generate useful documentation about how a widget responds. So a Widget takes program and user inputs, and generates program and user outputs. Any state (e.g: cursor) will be saved elsewhere, and I've come to the conclusion that separating "GUI state" from "model state" is not a good idea. This allows me to use the "cursor" of a box of widgets as an active selection, and not just a way to navigate, for example. It also means that I can use the same persistency model/etc for the GUI as I do for the model. I wrote a simple (again, still at the POC stage) transactional, structural, revision-controlled editor based on vtywidgets (https://github.com/Peaker/treeedit https://github.com/Peaker/treeedit), and it persists the model, including the GUI state, in the transactional database. This means that I get undo features for GUI state (I can store it outside the revisioned store, but it's quite nice to have), and if I kill the editor and restart it later, it is at exactly the same state it was before.

dustingetz 16y ago

nice note correlating GUIs with historic excitement over OOP. "if a bunch of code needs to retain state, make it an object" well, a FP wizard might argue that most problems don't need stateful code to solve -- our decision to use stateful patterns is an implementation detail.

SwellJoe 16y ago
I'm all about FP, and find it lovely, but I've never seen a coherent explanation of an FP solution to GUIs. What is the FP answer to MVC? What does a modern GUI application design look like, if not OOP?
- wynand 16y ago
  I'll hazard a possibly bad answer. MVC is not inherently OO - it's more about sending messages which, although a feature of modern OO (Alan Kay even said that he should have called OO Message-Oriented programming), is not its defining feature (as we see it used today). Since the Model, the View and the Controller are just continually processing and sending messages, you could easily implement them as processes (say as in Erlang). A processes's state is then retained in immutable structures passed to recursive invocations of its main message loop (sorry if this sounds opaque - I'd recommend seeing how it's done in Erlang). Another GUI approach to FP that is being researched is functional reactive programming. There is a neat Javascript implementation called FlapJax. You could probably argue that FRP is a generalization of MVC (though I'll hedge my statement since I'm not 100% sure of this).

derefr 16y ago

I would say that the naturalistic fallacy is at play as well. If you have a business domain, and you want to model it as an algorithm, your first inclination—not knowing any computer science—will likely be to model each business object as, well, an object. A Store with Cashiers and a CashRegister and Products and UPCCodes, et al. And, surprisingly, using OOP, this works—although certainly not optimally. Until, of course, you try to build something like a compiler, which doesn't have real-world objects to equivocate to—and you find yourself screwed.

Peaker 16y ago

> I think the blossoming of GUI's -- which have A LOT of state I don't think GUI's have to have a lot of state. I wrote a Haskell library (https://github.com/Peaker/vtywidgets https://github.com/Peaker/vtywidgets) which can serve as a proof-of-concept of a "stateless GUI". The idea is that a widget is a pure function like (in pseudo-Haskell syntax): input_from_program -> (output_to_user, Map input_from_user (documentation, output_to_program)) A "Map" is a dictionary. It's like a function, but its domain can also be enumerated so we can generate useful documentation about how a widget responds. So a Widget takes program and user inputs, and generates program and user outputs. Any state (e.g: cursor) will be saved elsewhere, and I've come to the conclusion that separating "GUI state" from "model state" is not a good idea. This allows me to use the "cursor" of a box of widgets as an active selection, and not just a way to navigate, for example. It also means that I can use the same persistency model/etc for the GUI as I do for the model. I wrote a simple (again, still at the POC stage) transactional, structural, revision-controlled editor based on vtywidgets (https://github.com/Peaker/treeedit https://github.com/Peaker/treeedit), and it persists the model, including the GUI state, in the transactional database. This means that I get undo features for GUI state (I can store it outside the revisioned store, but it's quite nice to have), and if I kill the editor and restart it later, it is at exactly the same state it was before.