Magic of Object Oriented Languages

Nowhere is the dominance of paradigms more obvious than in object oriented languages. Just take a look at the words that we use to describe some their features: polymorphism, inheritance, virtual, abstract, overloading — all of them normal (or near-normal) everyday words, but signifying notions and concepts quite far from their literal meaning. फिर भी, and here is the rub, their meaning in the computing context seems exquisitely appropriate. Is it a sign that we have taken these paradigms too far? शायद. सब के बाद, the “object” in object oriented programming is already an abstract paradigm, having nothing to do with “That Obscure Object of Desire,” उदाहरण के लिए.

We do see the abstraction process running a bit wild in design patterns. When a pattern calls itself a visitor or a factory, it takes a geekily forgiving heart to grant the poetic license silently usurped. Design patterns, despite the liberties they take with our sensitivities, add enormous power to object oriented programming, which is already very powerful, with all the built in features like polymorphism, inheritance, overloading etc.

To someone with an exclusive background in sequential programming, all these features of object oriented languages may seem like pure magic. But most of the features are really extensions or variations on their sequential programming equivalents. A class is merely a structure, and can even be declared as such in C . When you add a method in a class, you can imagine that the compiler is secretly adding a global function with an extra argument (the reference to the object) and a unique identifier (कहना, a hash value of the class name). Polymorphic functions also can be implemented by adding a hash value of the function signature to the function names, and putting them in the global scope.

The real value of the object oriented methodology is that it encourages good design. But good programming discipline goes beyond mere adaptation of an object oriented language, which is why my first C teacher said, “You can write bad Fortran in C if you really want. Just that you have to work a little harder to do it.”

For all their magical powers, the object oriented programming languages all suffer from some common weaknesses. One of their major disadvantages is, वास्तव में, one of the basic design features of object oriented programming. Objects are memory locations containing data as laid down by the programmer (and the computer). Memory locations remember the state of the object — by design. What state an object is in determines what it does when a method is invoked. So object oriented approach is inherently stateful, if we can agree on what “state” means in the object oriented context.

But in a user interface, where we do not have much control over the sequence in which various steps are executed, we might get erroneous results in stateful programming depending on what step gets executed at a what point in time. Such considerations are especially important when we work with parallel computers in complex situations. One desirable property in such cases is that the functions return a number solely based on their arguments. This property, termed “पवित्रता,” is the basic design goal of most functional languages, although their architects will concede that most of them are not strictly “pure.”

Sections

टिप्पणियां