Thread: Understanding OOP

MODERATOR EDIT: This thread is a continuation of the following: http://www.javaprogrammingforums.com...exercices.html
Moved to keep that thread on topic and give this discussion its own place.

Originally Posted by KevinWorkman

The best way to understand is by practicing.

OP, you also might want to check out Code Hunt: https://www.codehunt.com/

maybe you mean the best way to master it is practicing?

because if you just keep practicing.... typing codes.... memorizing syntaxes.... without understanding it first, i think it's a waste of time.
learning the syntax, variables, memorizing them, keep typing until you understand it... it's really a waste of time.

OP should be teached with with illustration... like drawings.... when it says a PERSON.... should be drawn as a person (or a box)... lol... seriously.... and SHOW only the codes that matters on that point (NOT the whole whack of java different variables and routines).

i personally believe that once you reached that level where in your mind you can actually see (literally) objects interacting which each other......or....that level where you can model pretty much anything (even your tootbrush).... that is it, you're a programmer already and you just need to PRACTICE from that point on..

with all due respect, www.codehunt.com, is just one of the many tutorial sites that does not caters to understanding the concept of java OP. especially for beginners.
i've seen youtube tutorials where they all start with "public static void main(String[] args)... etc etc..".... i was able identify which code does this and that....i was good with it.
but when i was asked to do a very "simple database" of students....... i went blank.... because i did not understand the concept of OP. all i have are bunch of java syntax in my mind that I don't know how to use.


that's just me..
would love to write an OOP tutorial here for beginners if moderator allows me.... complete with illustrations... later

You're talking about teaching the theory before the basics, which is pretty demonstrably not the way to go. There's a reason beginner classes and tutorials focus on basic syntax before worrying about things like data structures and OOP.

You are entitled to your opinion, but telling the OP that he needs to understand OOP before he can practice syntax is a bit like saying you need to learn how the space shuttle works before learning how to drive a car.

You say it's "that simple", but to a novice, the concept of OOP is something that simply can't be understood. Beginners need to practice until they understand what String, int, and double are before they can start thinking about combining them into OOP.

The typical way to teach what you just described is by using parallel arrays first, then moving onto simple objects to organize data.

And the best way to learn any of that is by practicing by coding more and more complicated projects.

it all became TOO SIMPLE to me now because i understand OOP now..... and I can actually see object interacting in my mind.....
I see things as an OBJECT...... I can make an OBJECT out of a String class....i can make hundreds of them if i want too. i can make that object do something for me because I know that object has "capabilities" to do something (they call it methods)....

it's too simple now for me to make a database because I can see Student Objects "coming" in and out of the LIST....or MAP... without worrying about the syntax so much....

i think that's very very critical to beginners. See THINGS or codes as an object. Don't you think? (at least in Java and other OOP languages)

i think that's very very important in JAVA... to see THINGS as an OBJECT... ...for BEGINNERS or even experienced (if they have not seen their codes as an object yet)..

Good for you, but a novice who doesn't yet understand basics like if statements and for loops has no framework for understanding more complicated things like data structures or OOP. The best way to learn those basics is by practicing, which is what the OP asked for.

After you learn the basics, the more complicated semantics of the language will become more natural to you. And then, the best way to become more familiar with the more complicated aspects of programming... is by practicing some more.

I understand your point of view, but I have to agree with Kevin here.

What you worked hard at learning, was your own person way to get to where you are now.
There is no one path to becoming a fantastic programmer - be it in any language. Personally,
I know C very well - but that doesn't mean I consider myself a master at it. All of us are still
learning different ways to approaching something - and what works for one person doesn't
always work for another person (as the saying goes).

[quote]think that's very very important in JAVA... to see THINGS as an OBJECT... [/code]

I agree with you here - but like what Kevin said preciously, I had absolutely no idea what an object was.
Coming from a procedural language as C which doesn't entertain objects at all (I am not talking about
Objectiv-C btw). Yes it has structs and they resemble a class at the bare minimum that all data is defaulted
as public and not private like C++ for example.

I had to read a lot of things on Java before I leapt right in - and yes it was scary, I made sure I was
confident to do it. But I had to practice what I knew to get good at C - and I am a mere novice at
Java at the time of writing this - I do not ever expect to get a handle on it like I did/do have with C
in a short time. Learning how to program comes from lots and lots of practice - you write a small
program - you made a mistake - you learn from it. It takes time but eventually everything does
sink in.

I am not trying to be argumentative here at all, so please do not take this as criticism to what you
stated. You made some very valid points - and they do have stance in learning how Java works. I am
just saying that finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is never the same for each of us.

Wishes Ada xx

Originally Posted by johnbee

would that be more logical?

No.

You don't teach a kid how to read by teaching her about iambic pentameter and future-perfect tense verb conjugation first. You teach a kid how to read by going through the alphabet with her, then having her *practice* with simple words.

As the kid practices simple words, she can move on to more complicated words, then sentences, paragraphs, and eventually entire books.

You don't start her out by handing her a 1,000-page novel. Programming is the same thing.

Originally Posted by johnbee

i am a gentleman here

As am I a lady

Anyways I do agree with what you said though - sometimes disagreements, even in a practical and
professional one - can sprout good branches of knowledge and lead to new practices and learning curves.

Think back to when you first learnt programming - was it a OOP language that you dipped your toe in?
In that case - yes - of course you have a good head start in what an object is - and if it wasn't OOP, then you
knew you had to learn things a different way and think about other possibilities than just:

#include <stdio.h>
 
int main()
{
   callMeMaybe();
}
 
void callMaybe()
{
    puts("Here's my number...");
}

Bare in mind that ^^ is coming from the bare minimal procedural programming knowledge.
Hence it has no objects. To move from something as basic as that - to OOP entails a person to
think outside the box - "Hey, why can't I just declare a function in the global space of the source
file? Why does it have to be restricted to the local namespace of a class?: It's all about building
blocks - taking it one step at a time

Wishes Ada xx

Originally Posted by KevinWorkman

No.

You don't teach a kid how to read by teaching her about iambic pentameter and future-perfect tense verb conjugation first. You teach a kid how to read by going through the alphabet with her, then having her *practice* with simple words.

As the kid practices simple words, she can move on to more complicated words, then sentences, paragraphs, and eventually entire books.

You don't start her out by handing her a 1,000-page novel. Programming is the same thing.

of course you cannot do that to a kid.

BUT you can teach the kid "how to put that CUP inside the bucket".... simple.... without any word or saying anything... JUST BY looking at how the OBJECT move into the bucket.

that 1000-page novel? that's how the usual tutorials out there does.... teach you all the SYNTAX....... to which I oppose.
(BTW, in my opinion, it only takes 5 hours to teach OOP... not even... until a beginner find that EUREKA! moment)

OOP is very very simple to teach.... DRAW a BOX (which represent) a Person.... DRAW another box which represent a DATABASE (list or map in this case)... and that is it.

how to do you put that in code, well, You need to understand what a PERSON is... is has height, it has weight, it has sex....how to put that in code..... private double height, private double weight, private String sex...


that's it, very very simple.... you don't need a whole whack of syntax that goes around the bush..

I guess ALL am saying is there should be more EMPHASIS on understanding OOP first before syntax...

oh, i've done PROCEDURAL programming before (from BASIC, Pascal, Cobol Dbase3)....... but for some reason, I am enjoying OOP way more now..

Some people may think the opposite - in fact I know a few who have started off with C# and HATED the whole object talk - so they went to procedural and found it much
easier going. I guess it all depends on what an individual can get a grip on and enjoy it.

Originally Posted by johnbee

BUT you can teach the kid "how to put that CUP inside the bucket".... simple.... without any word or saying anything... JUST BY looking at how the OBJECT move into the bucket.

that 1000-page novel? that's how the usual tutorials out there does.... teach you all the SYNTAX....... to which I oppose.

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Programming = reading and writing. Can you teach a kid how to write a sentence about the cup and bucket just by showing them the cup and bucket? Nope. Even if a person "understood" your OOP explanation, it gives them absolutely zero knowledge about actually programming.

Originally Posted by johnbee

(BTW, in my opinion, it only takes 5 hours to teach OOP... not even... until a beginner find that EUREKA! moment)

OOP is very very simple to teach.... DRAW a BOX (which represent) a Person.... DRAW another box which represent a DATABASE (list or map in this case)... and that is it.

I can tell you've never taught OOP to anybody. And that's okay, but it's MUCH harder than you're making it sound.

Originally Posted by KevinWorkman

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Programming = reading and writing. Can you teach a kid how to write a sentence about the cup and bucket just by showing them the cup and bucket? Nope. Even if a person "understood" your OOP explanation, it gives them absolutely zero knowledge about actually programming.



I can tell you've never taught OOP to anybody. And that's okay, but it's MUCH harder than you're making it sound.

you're way off the track now. let me get you back to the right track of our argument.

cup and bucket? that's OOP.....
let me give you few more.... Apple and a Basket....... Dog and an AnimalDaycare.....Student and a Database.....Message and MessageInbox.......
if you still don't get where i am going with this, i bet you don't have a good understanding of OOP yet (with all due respect).......

do you want me to put those SAMPLES in code for you so you can see how SIMPLE and EASY it is to program in Java WHEN you have a good understanding of OOP first?

....Kevin, all am just saying is that a good SOLID understanding of OOP concept is more important to beginners to achieve FIRST than memorizing code syntaxes.... and the big advantage of this is that OOP applies to some other programming languages (not only Java) ..... like C++, C#, PHP, Phython, VB, etc.....and also means that when you have a good understanding of OOP, it's easy to apply that to other OOP languages.

i've seen forum members here posting their codes..... and they don't even know what it means. they know how to write it but have no clue what it really does....or when they get stuck, it's a dead-end for them.

oh, and actually, it does not take 5 hours.... it's possible to understand OOP in 1 or 2 hours only (up to the eureka! moment)... honestly.

yes, i have not taught OOP yet in my life. This is my first, with you.

peace!

This thread is a continuation of the following: http://www.javaprogrammingforums.com...exercices.html
Moved to its own thread to keep that thread on topic and give this discussion its own place.

Originally Posted by johnbee

i bet you don't have a good understanding of OOP yet

Not sure why you're going the route of personal attacks, but without listing my credentials here, I can assure you that I understand OOP perfectly. Understanding it and teaching it are two different things.

Originally Posted by johnbee

all am just saying is that a good SOLID understanding of OOP concept is more important to beginners to achieve FIRST than memorizing code syntaxes

And I'm saying that you're wrong. Every tutorial, book, and lesson plan I've ever seen agrees that you're wrong. My firsthand experience teaching novices agrees that you're wrong.

Even if a novice understands your analogies perfectly, they **will not** be able to translate that into programming without knowing some syntax first. You can talk about the ideas behind OOP to give novices a bit of an idea where you're headed with your lesson, but those ideas won't really become clear until they can play with them in code. And to do that, they need to know the basic syntax.

Originally Posted by johnbee

oh, and actually, it does not take 5 hours.... it's possible to understand OOP in 1 or 2 hours only (up to the eureka! moment)... honestly.

Like I said, it's obvious that you've never taught OOP.

Originally Posted by johnbee

yes, i have not taught OOP yet in my life. This is my first, with you.

Right.

oh, and actually, it does not take 5 hours.... it's possible to understand OOP in 1 or 2 hours only (up to the eureka! moment)... honestly.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous!

Have you ever tried to learn an Object-Orientated Language? To the full. Do you have some idea about how long it takes to learn Polymorphism,
Inheritance, Class abstraction, data hiding and encapsulation? I'l tell you one thing - if anyone can learn all that and more in two hours - then
I think that person would rival even the world's best programmers.

Wishes Ada xx

Especially since nowadays the IDE's are so exceptionally good for taking care of the syntax for most of stuff.

Personally, that is one of things I detest about modern IDE's. Code Completion and tips is a good idea - and it does help a person
out from having to type the entire statement out, but that is a feature I always turn off. Maybe I am being bias and I like typing,
however, I do find that not having the IDE bring up a endless menu of all the classes associated with the object, makes me have
to physically memorise exactly what the class is and how to spell it etc. - Again just my personal view on the matter

vi->edit->gcc->"Error: Stack overflow"->pull hairs->vi -rinse'n'repeat cycle

I've been there my friend - as have most members on this forum i'm guessing. Coming from a strict C background
gives you nightmares that may forever haunt you. Especially when the solution was staring you in the face

The amount of knowledge is in question tho! I don't really really agree with the many tutorials that dwell deep in to precision of types, different utilities and control flow nuances before introducing the conceptual thinking and OO basics.

Now this I also agree with to an extent. I do feel it is vital to learn most principles of structured programming concepts,
and going by some books I own or have owned on various languages, they do seem to dwell too long on a simplistic
subject such as what a int is, what an if statement is etc. I also understand that some people find it harder to understand it
than others, and thats O.K - learning is half the fun. But does a novice really need to know all this spread over a
ridiculous amount of pages and lectures Before he/she has even touched a class? No - in my view
KeepItSmartKeepItSimple applies here.

Overall - great read and a fair and accurate argument and addition to the discussion. Thank you!

Wishes Ada xx