maybe i can try reading wiki about OOP now... before watching this video i couldnt understand a thing.
im still a bit confused how data is accessed/communicated back and forth from these isolated parts of the program. but its just a small question so i guess ill figure out.
please do some follow up videos & demos in a real environment (like c++)
u really use excellent metaphors and explain througly!
I have watched about 30 minutes of your so called OOP explanation and cannot agree that OOP helps. The problem is OOP itself ! - I came to the conclusion that OOP is almost entirely counterproductive, confusing and massively bloating. Only poorly designed procedural programs suffer in the ways you cite. Good old fashioned modularization solved almost all of this kind of problem. I have used this for more than 40 years with almost ZERO errors and very tight code dicipline
Are you serious. I'm no veteran coder, but there are some benefits to using OOP. It's all about taste. You can get things done with 'spaghetti code' but what if you had to re-write a small piece of code? OOP is easier to manage. I respect your opinion though.... :)
Agree. OOP is no bad thing, but a good proc programmer already embraces a lot of concepts that OOP forces people to do. The value of OOP is consistency which has the benefit of easier maintenance/understandability. It's EVENT driven software I have issue with. I can do it, but IMO this more than anything harks back to the bad ol' days of spaghetti programming and can be a real headache to debug.. Check out 'Agile' a free flowing JIT programming paradigm that's gaining favour in big projects..
I have no problems at all with Event driven programming and, as for JIT, I developed my own JIT "compiler" in the early 1970's for the first fullt interactive mainframe based spreadsheet system (I am aware of) at ICI in Cheshire, UK (6 years before Dan Bricklin's "Visicalc" by the way). Event driven programming is simple if you use just one control variable to keep account of the 'state' and have a good debugging system (I wrote my own interactive debugging system too).
Oh yes, my main language is VB so I'm well versed in writing event driven software. Transition from procedural to event driven is a bigger leap IMO than the one to OOP. By Agile and JIT, I was referring to a methodology, an 'old skool' more natural method where you quickly bang out code to implement a small function less hindered by 'red tape'. Allows for free expression resulting in speed and flexibility regarding late design changes. Functionality first, structure and documentation later.
Can you talk a little more about OOP with reference to WMI? I'm currently learning this and think that others can take advantage of your explanations. CMI stores etc
@Makkand I need to learn more about WMI myself. It's everywhere! Perhaps making a video would force me to to it. I just sent out a questionnaire where I believe you were on the addressee list, so please include this in your response if you make one. Thanks.
Your wording and explaining is absolutely A1, now this may not gel with some people but to me you have reinforced my belief and understanding of OOP. Much appreciated. By the way, what made you go out of your way to do this video?
@Makkand I wanted to make this video for several reasons--first, I had stopped teaching for a living and wanted to make a reference for my future use of how I had learned to help people "get" this topic. Second, a friend (and many others) seem to believe that an object must remain "mysterious".
@Makkand The object is just the data, the class the operations valid for it's type. That just isn't mysterious enough for them. Third, I thought it might actually be helpful (and my ego really likes nice comments such as yours!)
Thanks, Joe. This is tremendously helpful and easy to understand. I'm teaching a web fundamentals class for my colleagues, and will use this conceptual frame to explain the use of objects in JavaScript (giving ample credit, of course).
Thanks for that. I'm learning Java. I'm new to programming. well actually, I did some BASIC programming when I was a kid (20 years ago). So this tutorial helped. Not with the programming - but with understanding why nothing I learnt in basic seems to apply to the new language and why it might nevertheless be worth persisting with Java. i think that was sort of your intention so well done.
Wow, this is exactly what I was looking for - OOP explained from the ground up. Now, I'm with you so far, but I would like to hear you continue a bit more into what is a class (you touched on it), method, and the other terms associated with OOP. I desperately need the rest!! Please continue, Professor . . .
@9578755 I would say that the tendency is to explain all of this as "mysterious" and that is what makes it complicated. People want to make it so "conceptual" that one can't relate it to what the computer is actually doing, and many of our minds seem to demand such a relationship before we can proceed. Thanks.
In my experience, most religiously OOP programmers abuse the hell out of heirarchy, modularization, and so on to the point that it IS now spagetti. I've seen simple programs that I can write in 10 minutes in one module using basic structs - that others have managed to turn into a giant confusing hierarchy across dozens of modules. It's superfluous coding. Just an example of OOP gone wrong - doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do in the first place.
I think you've got it--use the right tool for the right job and keep your eye on the ball--which is getting something done well (and within this lifetime) for the end user. Once you "buy in" to the idea of OOP, it gets simpler over time.
I'd say that the point of all OOP is for the benefit of the end user. All programming should be done for the benefit of the EU. OOP makes it easier for programmers to provide a good piece of software.
I don't think I really disagree, and I think I say something that admits that in the video. The benefit to the programmer is direct, and the end user is more indirect. However, putting it your way is probably way more helpful because the end user is so often forgotten! So I guess I have to concede the point after all!
WE WANT MORE... REAL WORLD EXAMPLES...... SAME PROGRAM MADE IN PROCEDURAL AND OO PROGRAMING
valentinmikleu 5 months ago
BEST OOP COURSE EVER!
maybe i can try reading wiki about OOP now... before watching this video i couldnt understand a thing.
im still a bit confused how data is accessed/communicated back and forth from these isolated parts of the program. but its just a small question so i guess ill figure out.
please do some follow up videos & demos in a real environment (like c++)
u really use excellent metaphors and explain througly!
thank u very much!
u got any donation button?
LastNinjaBB6 2 years ago
Sorry but...
I have watched about 30 minutes of your so called OOP explanation and cannot agree that OOP helps. The problem is OOP itself ! - I came to the conclusion that OOP is almost entirely counterproductive, confusing and massively bloating. Only poorly designed procedural programs suffer in the ways you cite. Good old fashioned modularization solved almost all of this kind of problem. I have used this for more than 40 years with almost ZERO errors and very tight code dicipline
SuperU2tube 2 years ago
Are you serious. I'm no veteran coder, but there are some benefits to using OOP. It's all about taste. You can get things done with 'spaghetti code' but what if you had to re-write a small piece of code? OOP is easier to manage. I respect your opinion though.... :)
Captnuendo 2 years ago
Agree. OOP is no bad thing, but a good proc programmer already embraces a lot of concepts that OOP forces people to do. The value of OOP is consistency which has the benefit of easier maintenance/understandability. It's EVENT driven software I have issue with. I can do it, but IMO this more than anything harks back to the bad ol' days of spaghetti programming and can be a real headache to debug.. Check out 'Agile' a free flowing JIT programming paradigm that's gaining favour in big projects..
saiello2061 1 year ago
@saiello2061
I have no problems at all with Event driven programming and, as for JIT, I developed my own JIT "compiler" in the early 1970's for the first fullt interactive mainframe based spreadsheet system (I am aware of) at ICI in Cheshire, UK (6 years before Dan Bricklin's "Visicalc" by the way). Event driven programming is simple if you use just one control variable to keep account of the 'state' and have a good debugging system (I wrote my own interactive debugging system too).
SuperU2tube 1 year ago
Oh yes, my main language is VB so I'm well versed in writing event driven software. Transition from procedural to event driven is a bigger leap IMO than the one to OOP. By Agile and JIT, I was referring to a methodology, an 'old skool' more natural method where you quickly bang out code to implement a small function less hindered by 'red tape'. Allows for free expression resulting in speed and flexibility regarding late design changes. Functionality first, structure and documentation later.
saiello2061 1 year ago
is this the end?
stereo123 2 years ago
a very simple and strong message
cowtorto 2 years ago
Can you talk a little more about OOP with reference to WMI? I'm currently learning this and think that others can take advantage of your explanations. CMI stores etc
Makkand 2 years ago
@Makkand I need to learn more about WMI myself. It's everywhere! Perhaps making a video would force me to to it. I just sent out a questionnaire where I believe you were on the addressee list, so please include this in your response if you make one. Thanks.
DarwinsHamster 1 year ago
Your wording and explaining is absolutely A1, now this may not gel with some people but to me you have reinforced my belief and understanding of OOP. Much appreciated. By the way, what made you go out of your way to do this video?
Makkand 2 years ago
@Makkand I wanted to make this video for several reasons--first, I had stopped teaching for a living and wanted to make a reference for my future use of how I had learned to help people "get" this topic. Second, a friend (and many others) seem to believe that an object must remain "mysterious".
DarwinsHamster 1 year ago
@Makkand The object is just the data, the class the operations valid for it's type. That just isn't mysterious enough for them. Third, I thought it might actually be helpful (and my ego really likes nice comments such as yours!)
DarwinsHamster 1 year ago
Comment removed
Makkand 2 years ago
Thanks, Joe. This is tremendously helpful and easy to understand. I'm teaching a web fundamentals class for my colleagues, and will use this conceptual frame to explain the use of objects in JavaScript (giving ample credit, of course).
soundacious 2 years ago
thank you
arielbberg 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for your talk.
I will consider seriously oo thanks to you.
pauladenisefatagnus 2 years ago
Thanks much.
devinny 3 years ago
Thanks for that. I'm learning Java. I'm new to programming. well actually, I did some BASIC programming when I was a kid (20 years ago). So this tutorial helped. Not with the programming - but with understanding why nothing I learnt in basic seems to apply to the new language and why it might nevertheless be worth persisting with Java. i think that was sort of your intention so well done.
johncross21 3 years ago
Wow, this is exactly what I was looking for - OOP explained from the ground up. Now, I'm with you so far, but I would like to hear you continue a bit more into what is a class (you touched on it), method, and the other terms associated with OOP. I desperately need the rest!! Please continue, Professor . . .
SoCalMacDude 3 years ago
so this is it? I thought the O.O.P. was som sord of freakin complicated thing, looks like I was mistaking, thats simple stuff thanx for vids man.
9578755 3 years ago
@9578755 I would say that the tendency is to explain all of this as "mysterious" and that is what makes it complicated. People want to make it so "conceptual" that one can't relate it to what the computer is actually doing, and many of our minds seem to demand such a relationship before we can proceed. Thanks.
DarwinsHamster 1 year ago
In my experience, most religiously OOP programmers abuse the hell out of heirarchy, modularization, and so on to the point that it IS now spagetti. I've seen simple programs that I can write in 10 minutes in one module using basic structs - that others have managed to turn into a giant confusing hierarchy across dozens of modules. It's superfluous coding. Just an example of OOP gone wrong - doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do in the first place.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
(I'm thinking, done properly in the context of big programs and large groups of ppl - it's very useful)
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
I think you've got it--use the right tool for the right job and keep your eye on the ball--which is getting something done well (and within this lifetime) for the end user. Once you "buy in" to the idea of OOP, it gets simpler over time.
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago
I'd say that the point of all OOP is for the benefit of the end user. All programming should be done for the benefit of the EU. OOP makes it easier for programmers to provide a good piece of software.
bwelkk 3 years ago
I don't think I really disagree, and I think I say something that admits that in the video. The benefit to the programmer is direct, and the end user is more indirect. However, putting it your way is probably way more helpful because the end user is so often forgotten! So I guess I have to concede the point after all!
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago