[Tutor] Syntax when using classes question.
alan.gauld at btinternet.com
Sun Nov 12 01:40:28 CET 2006
>I guess I'm just lost as to the point of classes... Outside of using
> abstract a collection of methods that have similair roles
Most people get hung up on the data aspect of classes
and forget that the behaviour(the methods) are actually
the most important bit. However you have focused so
much on the methods you haven't noticed the data.
The point of classes is that they encapsulate data and the
functions that operate on that data. A classs that only has
functions is just a collection of functions that could sit
equally well in a module. A class enables you to capture
state between method calls in data that is local and
unique to the instance. If there is no shared data between
the methods then there is little need for a class. (There are
a few exceptions to that rule but not many). You have to
think of the methods of a class as being the operations
on a set of shared data.
Consider a string class; of what use would the strip() method
be if there was no sequence of characters within the class
to operate on? or the lower() method etc... Similarly for files.
If there was no file object then what would you read() or
> But when I group similar methods together
A class is not a group of *similar* methods, it is a set of
*related* methods - related through the data upon which
they operate. Think of a class as an object template, a noun.
Think what things you can do to such an object.
A common, although not always effective, technique for
identifying classes is to read (or write down if it doesn't
exist) a description of your problem or program. Underline
the nouns. Those are your classes. Now pick out the
verbs and attach them to the nouns. Those are your methods.
Finally look at the adjectives, those are likely indicators of
attributes of your classes.
Its simple and not always the best analysis technique but
its a good way to start.
> promptForge is a bad example,
As I hoped I'd shown a promptForge class would be
entirely appropriate if it had some data that related to
the methods. It could present a standard prompt message,
apply consistent error checking, do datya conersions etc etc.
> people tell me its overkill
OOP can often be overkill, it is frequently abused.
OOP is great for bigger programs and good for aiding resuse.
But functions can be just as reusable where no intermediate
or shared data is involved. If your programs are short there
is less likeliehood that you will find object useful. As your
programs get longer objects rapidly become powerful tools.
But don;t get hung up on them. They are not superior by divine
right, they are just one more tool in your toolbox.
Author of the Learn to Program web site
More information about the Tutor