struggling with Design -Paradigms
in [OOP]
|
Prev: looking for design patterns of interacting state machine
Next: Passing a lot of parameters in constructor?
From: topmind on 11 Feb 2007 23:28 On Feb 11, 7:16 am, "arnuld" <geek.arn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hai all, > > 1st of all, thanks for the replies, to my earlier post, and now with > your help (the comp.object folks :-) the confusion has gone, i am > very clear on my goals but still i have some difficulties. i will be > brief: > > i do understand the meaning of variables,objects,function as i have > done some Lisp, so i can say i am not a complete newbie. yes, i have > written some trivial programes too and i can understand books written > for programmers (like Programming Ruby) but cannot understand books > written for for much experienced programmers (like Stroustrup's TC++PL > 3/e). since i have never done any professional coding at some company > so i consider myself a beginner.i want to go directly to OOD (without > learning any anything else like procedural paradigm or algorithms). > > Is this right way? No! Procedural programming is quite useful. Even most OO fans agree that procedural has its places. And, learn relational theory and SQL. > > i will be looking for a job using C++ but searching the archives of > this newsgroup tells me that is not a good idea. hence, is it OK to > go to through path: > > OOA-D -> OOP using Eiffel/Ruby -> C++ > > ? > > thanks -T-
From: Jerry Coffin on 12 Feb 2007 01:37 In article <daniel_t-3D5F9A.15324911022007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, daniel_t(a)earthlink.net says... [ ... ] > Please understand, the concept of pointers are almost unique to C and > C++, all other languages hide them behind some sort of abstraction. Some other languages do -- others (e.g. Pascal) make them just as visible as C and C++ do. Languages that attempt to hide them do so to differing degrees as well. Lisp, for one example, keeps them hidden pretty thoroughly. Java officially says it doesn't have any pointers, but in reality, its pointers are only _barely_ hidden at all -- for example, there are obvious differences in how you normally use native types versus instances of objects, almost entirely because the latter are really pointers to objects so you have to explicitly allocate them dynamically. You're definitely right that pointers, per se, have little to do with object orientation though. They're purely a mechanism, with little relationship to design. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
From: Daniel T. on 12 Feb 2007 09:46 "topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> wrote: > Procedural programming is quite useful. Even most OO fans agree > that procedural has its places. And, learn relational theory and SQL. Agreed.
From: JXStern on 17 Feb 2007 19:45 I'll just second a bunch of stuff the others have said. If pointers are obscure to you at this point, don't worry, newer languages don't have them (or at least "deprecate" them), and even in C++ they are generally dispensable. Heck, Lisp is the king of pointer languages, and you didn't even know it! If you really want to understand, maybe you should do something retro, like learn assembler. Once upon a time that was every programmer's starting point, and fancy languages like Fortran came later (I have an antique book that says so, therefore it must be true!). Just wanted to note one paradigmatic thing about programming generally, it's a common phenomenon for someone to struggle with a new technology, just plain not getting it, until one day "the light goes on!". Been there, done that, and more than once. But on the positive side, there are only so many basic ideas at work in the whole friggin' field, and if you have a little natural talent and sufficient dedication, you'll get through the whole thing at some point. Good luck! J. On 11 Feb 2007 10:48:28 -0800, "arnuld" <geek.arnuld(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-learn-cpp.html#faq-28.3 > > >Daniel, i read that and that is not working for me :-( > >[OT] >i am trying to learn C++ since Nov, 2006. it has been 3 months since >then and i am not even able to understand the Desk calculator >programme in chapter 6. i discussed it at "comp.lang.c++" and that did >not work for me. when i tried to understand "Structures" in section >5.7, i hit with "pointers to char", totally out of my head :-(, and i >have only tried to learn the procedural aspect of C++, the "class >concept" never made any sense to me, so i always avoided it in C++. i >think one can not learn C++ directly, one needs to understand >"pointers" (may be "structures" too) & "OOD" before he jumps to C++. >[/OT] > >BTW, it was quite a good moment when i saw the "C++ FAQ" link. you are >still trying to help, nice Daniel T > >:-)
From: Casey Hawthorne on 18 Feb 2007 04:32
"arnuld" <geek.arnuld(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-learn-cpp.html#faq-28.3 > > >Daniel, i read that and that is not working for me :-( > >[OT] >i am trying to learn C++ since Nov, 2006. it has been 3 months since >then and i am not even able to understand the Desk calculator >programme in chapter 6. i discussed it at "comp.lang.c++" and that did >not work for me. when i tried to understand "Structures" in section >5.7, i hit with "pointers to char", totally out of my head :-(, and i >have only tried to learn the procedural aspect of C++, the "class >concept" never made any sense to me, so i always avoided it in C++. i >think one can not learn C++ directly, one needs to understand >"pointers" (may be "structures" too) & "OOD" before he jumps to C++. >[/OT] > I believe you are having challenges with the concept of "indirection", which can be implemented by pointers, references, etc. If you grasp the procedural aspect of C++, it might be helpful to view the concept of "classes" as preserving state over several hopefully related functions. -- Regards, Casey |