Skip to main content

Object Orientation Has Little to Do With “Objects”

I would like to declare that the word "Object" from "Object Orientated Programming" is damaging to any benefits. If this seems counter-intuitive, you should keep reading. This is a case where the title is harmful to the subject. Some people take things too far and imagine some requirement for the concept of an object, and forbid anything outside their definition. If we understand the real benefits of OOP, the inappropriateness of such object-enthusiasm becomes clear.

Do objects matter? Using a traffic simulation example, we'll say we have instances of a Car class. We add lots of methods, such as accelerate(speed_diff) and implement logic to stop the virtual car at a virtual red light. The non-OO alternative would be functions operating on data describing the state of the vehicle. When we add motorcycles, we non-OO version requires a new function to operate on the new kind of data; or, so we are told. We know the OO way of doing things is to create a Vehicle class and inherit it in both Car and Motorcycle. Somewhere along the way, we loose emphasis of the affect we actually benefit from.

We benefit from the interface of the "objects", not their virtue of being objects. Too often the consensus you here focuses on completely irrelevant aspects. Methods, classes, and objects are completely without value, if you do not employ the real benefits. The real benefit is that objects have shape, and multiple objects can have the same shape. This can manifest by a single function operating on both cars and motorcycles, for example. This is an obvious benefit to have accelerate() versus accelerate_car() and accelerate_motorcycle(). It does not matter that we pass something you can call an object to the function, but that we can pass different things which act similar enough to be handled uniformly. A very non-OO way would be a function which takes the current speed, and the acceleration, and returns the new speed. The caller would need to get the information, call the function, and change the speed of wherever it is stored. Here, the user is stuck depending on the internals, rather than the shape of the externals.

There are some common situations, where I hear complaints from new comers to the Python language. The misunderstanding of what OO means, and what a language should do, leads to misunderstandings of Python as a language.

Getting the length of an object is a great example. You find many Ruby and Java programmers confused or upset that we have no length property on all our objects with a length. The interesting part is the claim that this actually makes Python "less Object Oriented." The fact here is we have a perfectly acceptable model, with common interfaces in a variety of different Python objects. Duck typing is, perhaps, the ultimate goal of object orientation. Mappings, sequences, and iterations are other great examples of shape importance in Python.

Two top reasons are code reuse and design sanity. Centering on interfaces gives us both cheaply. We can reuse code, because we only care about how it acts, and not what it is. The design of the code is cleaner, because we can remove all reference and care related to what we are dealing with and treat it uniformly.

Comments

Fuzzyman said…
Whilst I agree that interfaces are one of the key benefits of OOP I don't think it is the only one.

Another benefit is the way that functionality is encapsulated in objects - allowing you to structure and think about your code in terms of interaction between objects.

Whilst those interaction happen *using* the interface, the *thinking* is in terms of the objects and the functionality wrapped up inside them - so OOP is definitely an 'appropriate' term, even if it can mislead the zealots...
Anonymous said…
Amen, in many ways static typing is the worst enemy of OOP, i don't think it is a coincidence that functional languages are statically typed either. While i'll agree that len() is a great reausable component of Python, i usually define a .lenght method /*or property*/ to any object I make that can benefit from it. I think most python objects *should* have one, and only use len() when there isn't one defined. It could also help if len() looked for .lenght() instead of .__len__() inside objects.
Jorge said…
I totally agree with the part that static typing sometimes gets in the middle of OOP. In fact several times while programming in Java I had wish I have a file-like-object approach, it's very frustrating to have all the methods present and yet having to get a interface or abstract class stuck in the middle.

In general I don't think Objects have little to do with OOP, it's more people overthinking stuff and putting too much constraints into something simple.

Object oriented programming is just trying to fit the real world into the computer, in the best way we can imagine it.
Alan said…
Why is there any advantage to x.length() over x.__len__() ?

Popular posts from this blog

The Insidiousness of The Slow Solution

In software development, slow solutions can be worse than no progress at all. I'll even say its usually worse and if you find yourself making slow progress on a problem, consider stopping while you're a head.

Its easy to see why fast progress is better: either you solve the problem or you prove a proposed solution wrong and find a better one. Even a total standstill in pushing forward on a task or a bug or a request can force you to seek out new information or a second opinion.

Slow solutions, on the other hand, is kind of sneaky. Its insidious. Slow solution is related the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but maybe worse. Slow solutions have you constantly dripping more of your time, energy, and hope into a path that's still unproven, constantly digging a hole. Slow solutions are deceptive, because they still do offer real progress. It is hard to justify abandoning it or trying another route, because it is "working", technically.

We tend to romanticize the late night hacking…

Finding "One Game A Month"

I was really excited about the One Game A Month challenge as soon as I heard about it.
For about two years I've struggled in fits and starts to make my way into game development. This hasn't been productive in any of the ways I hoped when I started. Its really difficult to be fairly experienced as a developer, which I believe I am in my day job as a web developer, while struggling really hard at an area in which your experience just doesn't exist.
Its like being a pilot who doesn't know how to drive.

But this challenge provided a new breath to this little hobby of mine. It gave me a scaffolding to experiment, to learn, to reflect on finished projects. I had spent far too much time on game projects that stretched on far past their exciting phases, bogged down by bad decisions and regret.
And it has worked.
I have a lot to learn. I have a lot of experience to gain through trial and error and mistake and discovery. I have a lot of fun to be had making more small games t…

On Pruning Your Passions

We live in a hobby-rich world. There is no shortage of pastimes to grow a passion for. There is a shortage of one thing: time to indulge those passions. If you're someone who pours your heart into that one thing that makes your life worthwhile, that's a great deal. But, what if you've got no shortage of interests that draw your attention and you realize you will never have the time for all of them?

If I look at all the things I'd love to do with my life as a rose bush I'm tending, I realize that careful pruning is essential for the best outcome. This is a hard lesson to learn, because it can mean cutting beautiful flowers and watching the petals fall to the ground to wither. It has to be done.

I have a full time job that takes a lot of my mental energy. I have a wife and a son and family time is very important in my house. I try to read more, and I want to keep up with new developments in my career, and I'm trying to make time for simple, intentional relaxing t…