Object oriented and structured paradigms

Hi,
I'm trying to find information which compares the OO and structured paradigms, but im finding it to find any information on google. I was wondering if there is another name for structured programming? Is imperative or functional programming the same as structured?
Thanks a lot.

Structured programming is somewhat vaguer concept than the other programming paradigms. The wikipedia is usually pretty good source for nerd speak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_programming

Similar Messages

Regading Object History and Structure Display

Hi all,
I need to add the standard functionality for the Object History and structure Display in my screen where i have FUNCTIONAL LOCATION as the input.
So i need the standard functioanlity for these field in my screen.
Please tell me how it can be achieved.
Useful answers will be rewarded.
Thanks & Regards,
Arun

THANKS

Object Orientes extension

I am relatively novice to ABAP/4. Please let me know whats the concept of Oject Oriented Extension In ABAP.

Hi Bharat,
Welcome to SDN.
ABAP Objects is a new concept in R/3 Release 4.0. The term has two meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the entire ABAP runtime environment. On the other hand, it represents the object-oriented extension of the ABAP language.
The Runtime Environment
The new name ABAP Objects for the entire ABAP runtime environment is an indication of the way in which SAP has, for some time, been moving towards object orientation, and of its commitment to pursuing this line further. The ABAP Workbench allows you to create R/3 Repository objects such as programs, authorization objects, lock objects, Customizing objects, and so on. Using function modules, you can encapsulate functions in separate programs with a defined interface. The Business Object Repository (BOR) allows you to create SAP Business Objects for internal and external use (DCOM/CORBA). Until now, object-oriented techniques have been used exclusively in system design, and have not been supported by the ABAP language.
The Object-Oriented Language Extension
ABAP Objects is a complete set of object-oriented statements that has been introduced into the ABAP language. This object-oriented extension of ABAP builds on the existing language, and is fully compatible with it. You can use ABAP Objects in existing programs, and can also use "conventional" ABAP in new ABAP Objects programs.
ABAP Objects supports object-oriented programming. Object orientation (OO), also know as the object-oriented paradigm, is a programming model that unites data and functions in objects. The rest of the ABAP language is primarily intended for structured programming, where data is stored in a structured form in database tables and function-oriented programs access and work with it.
The object-oriented enhancement of ABAP is based on the models of Java and C++. It is compatible with external object interfaces such as DCOM and CORBA. The implementation of object-oriented elements in the kernel of the ABAP language has considerably increased response times when you work with ABAP Objects. SAP Business Objects and GUI objects - already object-oriented themselves - will also profit from being incorporated in ABAP Objects.
For more information, please check this link.
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/developerareas/abap?rid=/webcontent/uuid/35eaef9c-0b01-0010-dd8b-e3b0f9ed7ccb [original link is broken]
Hope this will help.
Regards,
Ferry Lianto
Please reward points if helpful.

Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming (True/False)

Hi everybody,
Many of them saying that Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming.
I am very much confusing on that, so please help me to confirm that "Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming Language".

JAVA_NV wrote:
gopivista wrote:
Hi everybody,
Many of them saying that Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming.
I am very much confusing on that, so please help me to confirm that "Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming Language".Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming,for this two reasons are there
one is we cant create Objects to the primitive data types and there is no multiple Inheritance concept .While there are many definitions of "purely object oriented," and no on widely accepted standard, I've never heard one that requires multiple inheritance. That would NOT be a reason why Java is not fully OO.

Object-oriented programming: state and behaivor

First of all, sorry for my level english.
In Object-Oriented programming, should an object save always some state?
What about session stateless bean service? What is the sense?
These objects have only behaivour and not state.
Perhaps, the sense is that you can send a message to this object, in oposite of a static methods in utility class?
Thanks and regards.

I suppose you could argue that if it doesn't have any state, then it's not really an "object" in the OOP sense, but who cares, really.
Personally, I use state and behavior as a way to help clarify the responsibilities of various classes in the system, and if I see a codebase with a lot of objects with state but no behavior or behavior but no state, then it's a a red flag that it's a messy, poorly-thought-out design (and it usually turns out to be exactly that). The whole point of OOP (IMHO) is encapsulation, and bundling state and behavior together makes things encapsulated (you can prove that state changes only in certain areas in certain circumstances). Encapsulation makes for more easily maintainable code.
It's easy to spot the blue squares in a Mondrian. It's difficult to spot the blue bits in a Pollock. The former is well-encapsulated OOP and the latter is poorly-encapsulated spaghetti code.
That said, it's not the end of the world if you have a static utility class here and there.

Object Oriented Patterns and Visio

Visio question:
Does anyone know if there are established shapes for each (or any) of the object oriented patterns? If not, is anyone working on that or interested in that?
Since they all have names (Momento, Proxy, Iterator, Mediator, Observer, etc.) it seems like they ought to each have their own shape. Since Object Oriented is all about communication of intent, each pattern having its own recognizable shape would go a long way toward a more meaningful communication through diagram. Also, if they each had their own shape, then the super-patterns (based on commonly grouped patterns and interactions) could also be easily represented.
Blaine

I'm kind of making an assumption here and if it's in error then feel free to disregard the rest of this post.
Assumption that you're thinking terms of shapes for representing in UML the various patterns. Everything you need is right there in front of you already regardless of whether you use Visio, Rational, Poseidon or some other UML tool.
Patterns are not individual constructs. One does not make a Mediator class. One makes a Java class that is an implementation of the Mediator pattern. As such you would see in the static class diagram the same grouping of classes for an X Mediator as you would for Y Mediator. That is the image you're looking for. It's not a single widget that you drag onto the screen, it's in the pattern itself.
If, however, you're talking about something like a graphical representation to give to managers that says "Here be Momento patterns", then I would postulate that you're trying to communicate information that they don't need nor should they concern themselves with. Patterns are an implementation issue. They deal with, "How" we will solve a problem, not what problem will we solve. Mangaers, IMNSHO, need only concern themselves with what problems we will solve, not how they will be solved.
Just my 2 krupplenicks on the subject, your milage may of course vary.
PS.

Diff between object based and ob. oriented

diff between object based and ob. oriented

Object-oriented requires at least three factors:
1. Encapsulation: Combining data and the methods that manipulate the data into a self-contained unit called an "object" in which the data is hidden from the user and only the method interface is visible.
2. Inheritance: Ability of a class to extend the features of another class by obtaining all the public features of the other class while adding its own specialized features (Example: Great Dane inherits from Dog)
3. Polymorphism: The ability to perform "late binding" by invoke methods of a subclass on behalf of its superclass. (Polymorphism includes other things and it difficult to explain.
If a language does not include all three, it is called "object-based." Visual Basic 6 is object-based, because it allows you to define classes that encapsulate, but doesn't support an inheritance hierarchy nor polymorphism.

Article: Object-flow Programming - Merging Dataflow and Object-Oriented Programming

I just posted an ExpressionFlow article:
Object-flow Programming - Merging Dataflow and Object-Oriented Programming
I guess you may find it interesting. If you like it, you should
bookmark it with one of the social bookmarking tools (click the
bookmark link next to the timeline image in the article). That may help
us to get readers and comments from outside the LabVIEW community. And
don't hesitate to participate the discussion. I'd love to hear you
comments on the subject.
Tomi
Tomi Maila

After having problems with spam block software malfunction, I was able recover the following comments to the EXPRESSIONFLOW article Object-flow Programming - Merging Dataflow and Object-Oriented Programming
Written by Zen:
Some combination of data-flow and object-oriented programming, I think,
could make a great impact on sysytem development. However, I see it in
slightly different way than yours....
Written by Matt Holt:
I don't believe NI can get object-flow programming to move far enough
into mainstream that Forbes would cover it. NI has a bit of a
stranglehold on LabVIEW with it's price as compared to say… VS2005. It
seems that by promoting it as "easy to use" that NI may have shot
itself in the foot….
Written by Jim Kring:
Hi Tomi, In my opinion, LabVIEW's native object-oriented programming
capabilities (LabVOOP) do not currently provide a complete tool for
allowing us to implement our OOP system designs. Nearly all of my
system designs require distributed active objects by reference. I think
that National Instruments certainly can evolve LabVIEW to address such
requirements, but I think that it is not a real focus of NI....
If anybody else is missing their comments, I'm sorry I was unable to recover them. Please repost your comments, I appology for the inconvenience.
Tomi Maila

Mathscript and object oriented code m code

Hello,
I have some existing code written in Matlab with object-oriented programming that I would like to use with Mathscript RT nodes in LabVIEW.
Does NI have any plan to support object-oriented programming in mathscript RT nodes in the future?
In the mean time, is there any easy solution with minimum changes that would allow me to use my existing code?
Thanks

Hey L54,
Unfortunately, there have not been any public announcements regarding the support of object-oriented code for the MathScript RT nodes. Also, for tips on how to change your code to make it work, there really is no easy way to go about doing this.
Are you deploying to a RT target? Would it be possible for you to use the MATLAB Script Node? This is included with LabVIEW and actually connects to your MATLAB software and would most likely be able to run the object-oriented code.
Sorry about not supporting object-oriented code, but hopefully using the MATLAB Script Node help you achieve your desired functionality.
Joe S
Applications Engineer
National Instruments
MATLAB is a registered trademark of The MathWorks, Inc.

Object Oriented Analysis And Design

Hi,
Can somebody suggest how to satrt the Object Oriented Analysis And Design. Is there any suitable site for this?
Thanks,
Subodh.
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.4, SCBCD 1.3.

Many thanks Leelavati for your response.
chariflakchiri , I think you interpreted in a different way.Can you visit
http://www.objectdiscovery.com/programming/java/ooad/outline.html.
Then you will come to know what is required for you to say that you know OOAD. See what percentage of the tutorial you really need to get SCJP, SCWCD, SCBCD.

Gfx object properties: picture and structure

For some objects, e.g. in 3D-pie-diagrams attributes like color, picture, colored picture and a "structure" can be applied (don't now the correct english description as I use a localized version).
How can I change the "structure" (e.g. wood, marble...)? I did not find any possibility to change them so far, except applying another theme - which changes all of them. Is there any possibility to change it directly on the object? Or do I need to setup my own theme? How can I do this - the manual was not helpful there.
Where are keynotes standard pictures and structures stored, so I can select them?
Thank you,
Frank

Frank, how to change textures in chart objects is discussed in this thread. (The only bit I would add to these instructions is the tip that, in addition to using the "Choose..." button to navigate to the desired texture, you can also just drag an image file onto the little square image "well", and that will set the texture too.)

Structure approach N Object-oriented approach

Hi everyone
I will be very thankful if someone could explain to me how could we change a written java program using the structure approach into object-oriented approach.
I mean what main command do i have to use?
thanks!

Huh?

Ready-Made Effects and Object Oriented Timeline

As an actionscript programmer and designer all we need to
effects. But when i searched for ready-effects there is no an
add-on for this. But Adobe must have done this until now. Why there
aren't lot of ready-made effects in Flash?
And one more suggestion to Adobe developers: Every object
must shown as an object in timeline. Not as a layer part. Thus,
programming ability of Flash will arise.

After having problems with spam block software malfunction, I was able recover the following comments to the EXPRESSIONFLOW article Object-flow Programming - Merging Dataflow and Object-Oriented Programming
Written by Zen:
Some combination of data-flow and object-oriented programming, I think,
could make a great impact on sysytem development. However, I see it in
slightly different way than yours....
Written by Matt Holt:
I don't believe NI can get object-flow programming to move far enough
into mainstream that Forbes would cover it. NI has a bit of a
stranglehold on LabVIEW with it's price as compared to say… VS2005. It
seems that by promoting it as "easy to use" that NI may have shot
itself in the foot….
Written by Jim Kring:
Hi Tomi, In my opinion, LabVIEW's native object-oriented programming
capabilities (LabVOOP) do not currently provide a complete tool for
allowing us to implement our OOP system designs. Nearly all of my
system designs require distributed active objects by reference. I think
that National Instruments certainly can evolve LabVIEW to address such
requirements, but I think that it is not a real focus of NI....
If anybody else is missing their comments, I'm sorry I was unable to recover them. Please repost your comments, I appology for the inconvenience.
Tomi Maila

Object Oriented vs Context Oriented Programming

A few weeks ago, I submitted a Paradigm Shift: the WDP Model & the Power to Bind in which I tried to argue for a more object oriented approach to the structuring of WDP Components by using the javabean model as an abstraction layer for the WDP Context structure. My thinking on this matter has led me to another realization - an even more radical one at that, as it raises questions on a universally accepted feature of the Web Dynpro architecture:
Is it really wise for a WDP Component to expose its Context to the world?
Doesn't that go against the principle of encapsulation - one of the most important principles of object oriented theory? A component could and should be completely defined by the methods, properties and events it exposes to the outside world. Any client wishing to avail itself of the Component's services should be able to do so through this well defined interface - and all the rest should remain implementation details. That's how most component models I've worked with usually work.
SAP has done a decent job of designing WDP Components that have the expressive power to expose methods, properties and events. Why isn't this sufficient ? Can anyone here explain to me what advantage one gains by exposing the internal workings of the Component (ie its Context) thereby breaking the fundamental OO principal of encapsulation ? Isn't this "feature" of Web Dynpro actually encouraging bad OO development practices? Anyone from SAP's Web Dynpro Design team would care to take a shot at this one? Do they read these forums?
Romeo Guastaferri

Hello Valery
I don't quite agree with you when you say "Context is in fact grouped hierarchical properties of controller". I would tend to say it's more like grouped hierarchical properties of the UI Elements and the Model objects that are used by the Controllers and Views. It is a structure designed for sharing data between Views and Controllers of a Web Dynpro Component. And as such, is an implementation level construct that should remain encapsulated at the Component level. Where I draw the line is in the practice of sharing Contexts between Components.
page 13 of <a href="https://www.sdn.sap.comhttp://www.sdn.sap.comhttp://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a048387a-0901-0010-13ac-87f9eb649381">The Structural Concepts of Web Dynpro Components</a> states that
<blockquote>
"...the Web Dynpro component is a reusable unit of code at the business process level, rather than the technical coding level."
</blockquote>
However, the Context is a technical Web Dynpro construct, not a business level concept. Why would you need to access the Context structure at the business level ? As a business client, I shouldn't be expected to master context manipulation api and have to navigate a structure to get at the information stored at the current lead selection. I should be able to easily query the component by invoking some
component.getSelectedEntity()
method. Let the component worry about navigating whatever internal representation it chooses to use (whether it be it Context API, JNDI, XML or whatever)... and just give me the information I need and ask for - in a format that makes sense to me, from a business perspective. I find this to be much more in tune with OO philosophy.
I shouldn't have to (and shouldn't be allowed to) dig in for myself in the data structure to extract the bits of information that I need. And it's for this reason that I expressed my opinion that exposing the Context at the Component level is not only unnecessary (properties, methods and events are perfectly adequate to publicly characterize a Component) but actually encourages bad OO programming practices.

Expose Object Oriented Service code as Web Services?

Hello All,
I would appreciate for your insight on this matter!
Web Services are basically RPC (Procedure Oriented) over Soap. Each service invocation by a client results a procedure execution on the server side (In many case, a service class may need to be instantiated before the procedure can be called).
Suppose I have developed server-side logics in Object Oriented manners. How can I expose the OO server logics as Web Services? Does JDeveloper handle OO services any different from PO (procedure-oriented) services as far as the generated wrapper code/interface and WSDL?
Specifically, I have the following example in mind. Assume we are able to successfully expose an OO services. A client calls one of the OO service (let's say service1 in portType1) the 1st time, and establish some transit state (not committing into DB), the same client subsequently calls another service (service2) of the same server portType1. How would the server retrieve the transit state established earlier by service1 while executing service2? (note, this situation would not be resulted in a procedure-oriented case. since each RPC call is independent from the others)
I realize that "stateful" deployment may be of an option. However, stateful seems relying on client cooperation (e.g., via cookies) to establish context across multiple invocations. This may or may not be possible given an arbitrary client parties write its client code based on a WSDL.
Another option I can think about is for Jdeveloper to generated different code for PO services vs. OO services. However, it seems not the case in current Jdeveloper.
Thank you so much!
jason

Web services in general have two styles of invocation: RPC style and Doc style. RPC maps as you say directly to methods on Java class (or if a DB PL/SQL package to procedures and functions).
The alternative, DOC, generally (though not all the time) maps to a message oriented interface. Often DOC style Web services map to messaging infrastructure such as Java Message Service Queues and Topics.
That said RPC works well with EJB's, the component model for J2EE.
Often what folks will do is build a service layer that is very coarse grained when exposing backend infrastructure as Web services. This abstraction typically hides a more OO underpinning (or quite often hides a very procedural backend too).
The bottom line is the Web services do not force an OO paradigm but nor do they hinder you in any way from adopting an OO paradigm.
In terms of JDeveloper currently it supports RPC and supports DOC only with some tweaking. On the server side, the Oracle9iAS infrastructure supports both DOC and RPC.
Hope this is a start to answering what I think is a hard question to answer!
Mike.

Object oriented and structured paradigms

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for