Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can OO Programming Solve Engineering Problems?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

ThChalm asks: "I am the first one to admit that my programming experience is somewhat limited. The majority of it has been obtained writing FORTRAN code to solve problems in mechanical engineering. I have written some smaller (you might say toy) codes using C. I have read a lot of books on C++ (and OOP), but always get frustrated with the following question: Why can't anyone show me an engineering application that is solved with an object oriented program?"

"I appreciate the concepts of OOP and see its applicability in managing records, GUIs, and possibly standard function libraries. I cannot, however, convince myself that there is a clean way to use these concepts to solve the type of procedural problems that I have encountered in the past (finite difference solutions to differential equations, finite-volume computational fluid dynamics, iterative solutions to non-linear equations, Monte-Carlo simulation of radiative heat transfer, etc.)

Am I just being close minded to the ideas of OOP or do my problems just require 'procedural' solutions, which are better solved using procedural techniques? I'll even be happy with the answer 'Your problems are two small and specialized to realize any significant advantages of OOP.'

I'd be interested in hearing comments from anyone else who has this problem, anyone who has worked through it, or anyone who can send me an example of an engineering application of C++ and OOP."

6 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Functional by ParamonKreel · · Score: -1, Troll

    Yes, do functional if you are only coding basic Algorithms.

  2. OOP by utdpenguin · · Score: -1, Troll
    May I recomend to you the improved version of OOP called Object Oriented Programming Sucks (OOPs) and fill in many of the holes you are talking about. Youc an get more info Here.

    --
    In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
  3. OO / Not OO - who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    if (question == lame) {
    mainpage.post();
    x = random() mod 5;
    switch x;
    1: cout << "This is cool!";
    2: cout << "I wonder if you can run linux on it?!";
    3: cout << "Too bad I don't have a windows box to try it on."
    4: cout << "Update: Oops, we ran this two days ago. My bad."
    5: cout << "I've been playing (windows only game) nonstop for three weeks. It rocks."
    break;
    }

  4. OOP Myths by DVega · · Score: 1, Troll

    There is an interesting (and rather negative) review about OOP here (OOP Criticism).

    OOP is by no means a magic solution to programming problems.

    --
    MOD THE CHILD UP!
    1. Re:OOP Myths by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll


      (* and is littered with obvious misunderstandings about OO *)

      Name one.

      (* Is this a reasonable challenge? Does he seriously expect anyone to take it up in earnest? *)

      You are welcome to suggest "fairer" rules.

      Ragarding other niches, at least I am not so centerUniversed that I extrapolate my nature-imposed limited lifetime experience into *every* domain.

      I agree that my criticisms may NOT apply to physical engineering.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  5. You're Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You're right - OO can't solve shit. It's just another religion for the weak minded. The cowards of this world hide behind things like this, the suits force these things on ordinary joes, who just keep silent and work the drudge. It's shit shit and more shit and in ten years it will be gone but back again with a new name. There is only one way to write a program - to write it - and their is only one language computers understand - their own.