Why use classes instead of functions?

Question

I do know some advantages to classes such as variable and function scopes, but other than that is just seems easier to me to have groups of functions rather than to have many instances and abstractions of classes. So why is the "norm" to group similar functions in a class?

Solution 1

Simple, non-OOP programs may be one long list of commands. More complex programs will group lists of commands into functions or subroutines each of which might perform a particular task. With designs of this sort, it is common for the program's data to be accessible from any part of the program. As programs grow in size, allowing any function to modify any piece of data means that bugs can have wide-reaching effects.

In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are either bundled in with the data or inherited from "class objects" and act as the intermediaries for retrieving or modifying those data. The programming construct that combines data with a set of methods for accessing and managing those data is called an object.

Advantages of OOP programming:

• MAINTAINABILITY Object-oriented programming methods make code more maintainable. Identifying the source of errors is easier because objects are self-contained.
• REUSABILITY Because objects contain both data and methods that act on data, objects can be thought of as self-contained black boxes. This feature makes it easy to reuse code in new systems.Messages provide a predefined interface to an object's data and functionality. With this interface, an object can be used in any context.
• SCALABILITY Object-oriented programs are also scalable. As an object's interface provides a road map for reusing the object in new software, and provides all the information needed to replace the object without affecting other code. This way aging code can be replaced with faster algorithms and newer technology.

Solution 2

The point of OOP is not to 'group similar functions in a class'. If this is all you're doing then you're not doing OOP (despite using an OO language). Having classes instead of just a bunch of functions has a side effect of 'variable and function scopes' that you mention, but I see it just as a side effect.

OOP is about such concepts as encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, abstraction and many others. It is a specific way of software design, a specific way of mapping a problem to a software solution.

Solution 3

Grouping functions in a class is by no means the norm. Let me share some of the things I have learned through experimentation with different languages and paradigms.

I think the core concept here is that of a namespace. Namespaces are so useful that they are present in almost on any programming language.

Namespaces can help you overcome some common problems and model various patterns that appear in many domains, e.g., avoiding name collisions, hiding details, representing hierarchies, define access control, grouping related symbols (functions or data), define a context or scope ... and I'm sure there are more applications.

Classes are a type of namespace, and the specific properties of classes vary from language to language and sometimes from version to version of the same language, e.g., some provide access modifiers, some do not; some allow inheritance from multiple classes, others do not. People have been trying to find the magic mix of features that will be the most useful and that in part explains the plethora of available options in different programming languages.

So, why use classes, because they help solve certain kinds of problems in a way that seems natural or maybe intuitive. Every time we write a computer program we're trying to capture the essence of the problem and if the problem can be modeled by using some of the patterns mentioned above then it makes perfect sense to use those features of a language that help you do that.

As the problem becomes better understood you might realize that certain parts of the program could be better implemented by using a different paradigm/feature/pattern and then it's time for refactoring. Most programs I have had the chance to work on keep evolving until either the money/resources run out or when we arrive at the point of diminishing returns, many times you have something that's good enough for now and there's little incentive to keep working on it.

Solution 4

It's not the norm, it's just one way of doing it. Classes group methods (functions) AND data together, based on the concept of encapsulation.

For lager projects it often becomes easier to group things this way. Many people find it easier to conceptualizes the problem with objects.

Solution 5

There are many reasons to use classes, not the least of which is encapsulation of logic. Objects more closely match the world we live in, and are thus often more intuitive than other methodologies. Consider a car, a car has properties like body color, interior color, engine horsepower, features, current mileage, etc.. It also has methods, like Start (), TurnRight(.30), ApplyBrakes(.50). It has events like the ding when you open your car door with the keys in the ignition.

Probably the biggest reason is that most applications seem to have a graphical component these days and most of the libraries for graphical user interface are implemented with object models.

Polymorphism is probably a big reason, too. The ability to treat multiple types of objects generically is quite helpful.

If you are a mathematician, a functional style may be more intuitive, ML, F#. If you’re interacting with data in a predictable format, a declarative style would be better like SQL or LINQ.

View more solutions