![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
i'm back to needing a work icon
Sep. 11th, 2008 01:22 pmQuestion for object oriented gurus:
I am currently reviewing some code implementing a current standard of an algorithm i frequently use. (I want to examine some modifications to the algorithm, but, i need a good baseline to compare to.) In it we see something like:
struct velocity
{
int size;
double v[D_max]
};
There are a lot of these structs - position, quantum, etc.
Thing is, in my code, i generally declare
num_dim = n; // this is what they are using size for up above
double position[num_dim];
double velocity[num_dim];
(quantum, for the record, appears to be taking the place of what i usually declare as a constant Eps, and is used to get around numerical issues when looking for zero.)
etc. I do not have additional structs. Thing is, i find all this structifying to be sort of pointless and irritating. Pointless because i do not know what the structs are adding to the code. Irritating because i think they add a level of obfuscation, rendering the code not only longer, but also much less readable.
My question - what, if anything, am i missing in this situation? I get, generally, what object oriented-ness does for you. But i haven't used it very much in the past 6 or so years. (Matlab's excuse for object oriented isn't worth bothering with.) Right now i find myself faced with a few examples of modern code that are object oriented up the ass, and it just seems like it all has been taken too far. If i give myself three months will i become a believer? Will i stop feeling like there should be some sort of natural progression through code and adapt to having objects interacting at will?
I am currently reviewing some code implementing a current standard of an algorithm i frequently use. (I want to examine some modifications to the algorithm, but, i need a good baseline to compare to.) In it we see something like:
struct velocity
{
int size;
double v[D_max]
};
There are a lot of these structs - position, quantum, etc.
Thing is, in my code, i generally declare
num_dim = n; // this is what they are using size for up above
double position[num_dim];
double velocity[num_dim];
(quantum, for the record, appears to be taking the place of what i usually declare as a constant Eps, and is used to get around numerical issues when looking for zero.)
etc. I do not have additional structs. Thing is, i find all this structifying to be sort of pointless and irritating. Pointless because i do not know what the structs are adding to the code. Irritating because i think they add a level of obfuscation, rendering the code not only longer, but also much less readable.
My question - what, if anything, am i missing in this situation? I get, generally, what object oriented-ness does for you. But i haven't used it very much in the past 6 or so years. (Matlab's excuse for object oriented isn't worth bothering with.) Right now i find myself faced with a few examples of modern code that are object oriented up the ass, and it just seems like it all has been taken too far. If i give myself three months will i become a believer? Will i stop feeling like there should be some sort of natural progression through code and adapt to having objects interacting at will?
