loading...

re: OOP Overkill VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

I agree with you. Definitively I do not like the "everything is an object" approach or code with a hierarchy of classes with a very fine resolution. I remember a library that had something like "abstract socket," "abstract TCP socket," "socket that eats bytes", ... "RTP socket" and so on. Honestly, a mess.

I program in Ada (that allows OOP, but not forces it on you) and my choice if defining a class (a "tagged type" in Ada jargon) or a normal type is if I expect to need hereditary or polymorphism or if I need to "factorize" some common code. For example, in a program that reads different formats it can make sense to have an "abstract parser" that defines the interface that an "input parser" must have and then for every format there is a parser handling it. This makes much simpler to add new parsers.

Code of Conduct Report abuse