Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How to think about objects

How to think about objects letters to the editor DOI:10.1145/1839676.1839678 how to think about objects T hough I agree with Mordechai Ben-Ari ™s Viewpoint œObjects Never? Well, Hardly Ever!  (Sept. 2010) saying that students should be introduced to procedural programming before object-oriented programming, dismissing OOP could mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. OOP was still in the depths of the research labs when I was earning my college degrees. I was not exposed to it for the first few years of my career, but it intrigued me, so I began to learn it on my own. The adjustment from procedural programming to OOP wasn ™t just a matter of learning a few new language constructs. It required a new way of thinking about problems and their solutions. That learning process has continued. The opportunity to learn elegant new techniques for solving difficult problems is precisely why I love the field. But OOP is not the perfect solution, just one tool in the software engineer ™s toolbox. If it were the only tool, we would run the risk of repeating psychologist Abraham Maslow ™s warning that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Communications of the ACM Association for Computing Machinery

How to think about objects

Communications of the ACM , Volume 53 (11) – Nov 1, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/how-to-think-about-objects-qLYckg2N3L

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by ACM Inc.
ISSN
0001-0782
DOI
10.1145/1839676.1839678
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

letters to the editor DOI:10.1145/1839676.1839678 how to think about objects T hough I agree with Mordechai Ben-Ari ™s Viewpoint œObjects Never? Well, Hardly Ever!  (Sept. 2010) saying that students should be introduced to procedural programming before object-oriented programming, dismissing OOP could mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. OOP was still in the depths of the research labs when I was earning my college degrees. I was not exposed to it for the first few years of my career, but it intrigued me, so I began to learn it on my own. The adjustment from procedural programming to OOP wasn ™t just a matter of learning a few new language constructs. It required a new way of thinking about problems and their solutions. That learning process has continued. The opportunity to learn elegant new techniques for solving difficult problems is precisely why I love the field. But OOP is not the perfect solution, just one tool in the software engineer ™s toolbox. If it were the only tool, we would run the risk of repeating psychologist Abraham Maslow ™s warning that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like

Journal

Communications of the ACMAssociation for Computing Machinery

Published: Nov 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.