Object-Oriented Programming Part 1

[supermortalhuman]

I REALLY want to learn programming, but I cannot seem to find ANY videos or books etc that actually help a beginner. They ALWAYS assume prior knowledge. Could someone *please* respond or mail me videos, tips, anything to start programming - I want to learn, and I can learn anything on the PC but THIS. It's killing my brain not being able to do this. I am very smart. I don't know where to start. I am interested in c++, c#, python, and especially LUA. Please help :/

[kcjenner1]

I really don't know if I do or do not understand OOP. Is this a true (fair) statement:

Object Oriented Programming - It is the DATA (the object) that is important in this programming paradignm. The syntax of the particular chosen programmming language may differ from that of another, but for compatibility if the data is handled properly (respecting the concepts of Object Oriented Programming) then hopefully there will be fewer problems in the future when upgrading or converting systems.

[AhYaOk]

very good points. i'm very glad i took a program design class before taking java. this helped me to understand most all control structures. i still have a long way to go before i would call myself a programmer though. : /

thanks for your awesome videos!

[rribar]

I am very new to OOP concepts and programming in general, and I have to say this entire series of videos has really helped me understand these new concept and more importantly the value of OOP. Your explanation is much easier to understand than any book I've read. Thank you for making this video and publishing on YouTube. I will definitely stick with it. Thanks so much! -Rob (Huntington Beach, CA)

[lostseed]

Im glad someone else understands! I had a LOT of trouble with going from Procedural to OOP. It has taken me an excessive amount of time to adapt to the OOP view. It's like totally changing your thinking, but the benefits seem to FAR outweigh procedural and is well worth striving to understrand.

[abombinreverse]

its a far more intuitive and descriptive

way of programming. it also liberates the developer and allows more control.

[Captnuendo]

OOP is great but it's a complicated / simple concept. Im still having a hard time understanding it. I only studying programming for a week. (i'm a musician and it's almost the same as programming)

[LastNinjaBB6]

WOW! Excellent tutorial! :-)

some of the reasons:

1.) u take your time to explain the same things more than once (from different angles)

2.) u give short but efficient explanations followed up by longer explanations to give some deeper understanding. its really step by step.

3.) u use metaphors in a great way

4.) u speak slowly and adjust the tone just right to suit the current state of explaination.

all other tutorials were too advanced and skipped elemental parts.

wheres donation button?

[ciablasar]

Hi, I'm fifty years old and learned my programming in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mostly Basic but some Fortran and Pascal.

Over the last two years I again became responsible for managing a software dev team. Your video series had an unbelieveable effect on my understanding. You bridged a gap between what I already knew and what I had difficulty understanding.

Thank you so much....

[lotsofchats]

Thanks so much for making these vids. You have really helped me grasp the concept of objects, classes, methods, etc. I was afraid I would never understand and fail my class, but not anymore. Thanks again.

[DarwinsHamster]

This comment made my day! Thanks!

[lotsofchats]

You're very welcome! :-)

[casandramar]

really i like the procedural programing but im looking to start in the object oriented way, any sugestions ?

[feejo]

Python

[triple629]

java easyer than python used wider

[kaiwaig]

Hi, thank you for the great video; I tried to learn OOP, but in the end, it became just too complicated given that I had learned AMOS/AmigaBASIC and it just didn't jell. Today I'm learning C, but I'd eventually like to learn OOP, but I guess the horrific experience I had trying to learn it (via Java) didn't really leave much of a good impression on me over the whole idea.

[DarwinsHamster]

And I would say the reason it was so horrific was that no one did a good job of showing OOP as an extension of what you already knew--they wanted to start over, and it was hard for you to see how what they were trying to tell you fit in with what you already knew. At least that was my problem.

[redfoxarts]

why cant I watch your damn good video?

[DarwinsHamster]

I don't know, but if it's just this one video, I can email it in a fairly compact format (I think) if you give me an email address to send it to. Thanks!

[redfoxarts]

nevermind. Nice one. It worked. :D

[wonderist]

Cool. Thanks for starting these vids. I'm also a programmer, and I think programming and OOP have a strange relation to this whole atheist movement thing. It seems to me the atheists who most 'get it' tend to be the more logical/technical/scientific minded ones. I don't know if you've also made this connection, but it will be interesting to see where you take these vids.

[jooqan]

You have put interesting stuff out lately! When teaching programmers, do you prefer pure object oriented languages (like java (let's forget the native interface in this case))over languages like C++ that offers you direct lower level access as well, or other way around, and why? Which you think should be thought first; programming on low level or the concept of OO. Does it make programmer somewhat clueless or not if he doesn't know what happens 'physically'? Way too little space for spam xc)

[DarwinsHamster]

You ask an excellent question, and my own opinion is highly biased: I think it should be taught the way I learned it! I originally learned a non-OOP language where I was given a sort of intuitive description of what the hardware was doing, and built on that. My objectives from my own programming is to get the job done, and so I don't lean toward an overly theoretical obsession that I think some people have. They use a hammer when a toothpick would work just as well or more easily.

[johntheunique]

I would argue that Java isn't a purely object oriented language, since it still requires you to code using primitive variables (although it does provide wrapper classes). Needless to say, object oriented programming in Java doesn't feel natural. You've got to do all sorts of needless type casting, when the language should just be able to assume some things. If you've ever tried Smalltalk (the original object oriented language) you'll know what a truly object oriented language is like.

[jooqan]

I don't see that the primitives are bad thing (improve effiency), I mean, as you said, you can use the wrappers if needed. For some reason I would rather use a language that does not assume too much. Other note, I like how wide standard libraries Java has to offer and it is beautiful language syntax wise. Still for my needs (not that I have current needs) C++ serves me well.

where I live and studied java was used as a text book example of OO programming language.

[johntheunique]

I understand that Java keeps primitives for efficiency reasons, but it still seems like the compiler could interpret objects as primitives, allowing the language to be more consistent. Java still masks a lot of the complexity of object oriented programming, so it isn't a bad beginners language. In fact I've used it in places because its thread library is robust and really easy to use.

[jooqan]

I thought object orientation masks the complexity of programming in away by giving you all these 'interfaces' to work with, so you don't need to know what is going on, you can just ask the doorman to open the door for you and he will, you don't need to know exactly how he did it. Yes, the threads are handy in java, but I don't see what it has to do with masking the complexity of OO, no, I feel that it represents the OO way of thinking and doing things.

[wonderist]

If you think Java is 'beautiful', you should try learning Ruby. Probably the sexiest language I can think of, in terms of "Wow, it looks beautiful and does exactly what I thought it would do the first time!" Granted it's a scripting language, but it's also very powerful. Check out the Ruby on Rails project.

[johntheunique]

I did give Ruby a try a few years ago. I liked it for the most part, but there were parts of it that I found didn't act as I expected (something to do with the way it handles characters and arrays, I don't remember the details). Still, it seems to make more steps forward than back. It just hasn't become mainstream enough for me to really go after it.

[RosieDesire]

Rudy is pretty mainstream. Perl is the procedural version... Ruby is the object oriented variation. :) Ruby, Java, C#, C++, Python, etc... they all have their place in the OO world.

But depending on the problem you are trying to solve procedural code has advantages over Object Oriented just as OO has advantages over Procedural... It just depends on the problem you are attempting to solve.

[jogayot]

"Java has to offer and it is beautiful language syntax wise"

hah, lisp has a beatiful syntax... no syntax, that only gets in your way, at all. you silly algolistas.