
Object Oriented Role Analysis and Modeling - dmux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Oriented_Role_Analysis_and_Modeling
======
dmux
I've been enjoying going through the OOP literature from the 90's (and
earlier) and have especially enjoyed Trygve Reenskaug's view on things. I came
across the OORam methodology in Trygve's book, "Working with Objects" [0]
which I found after reading about Ivar Jacobson's "Use case driven design."

I found the idea of reifying use-cases into explicit code constructs
interesting.

[https://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1996/book/WorkingWithObject...](https://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1996/book/WorkingWithObjects.pdf)

------
beders
It sounds a little bit like a solution for a problem you wouldn't have if you
didn't use classes and inheritance in the first place.

A role as understood by OOram design principles paper is "An activity is a
task carried out by a set of associated objects in cooperation."

That's an abstraction more easily and succinctly solved by higher-order
functions.

And to boot OOram uses inheritance for re-using those role-models, which we
would avoid nowadays.

An interesting idea for sure, but more like an observation on the limitations
of (older) object-oriented language with regard to abstractions we now take
for granted.

~~~
dmux
>That's an abstraction more easily and succinctly solved by higher-order
functions.

Definitely a legitimate approach. In my mind, it seems to be describing
Dependency Injection or some type of Strategy Pattern. The activity is defined
using "roles" (interfaces) in some use-case class and then implementations of
those interfaces are injected.

~~~
wangvnn
"solved by higher-order functions" Then C is enough for everything. What a
waste !!!

------
LessDmesg
For those that want to understand what modern class-based OOP really is,
there's a great analysis at
[https://wiki.haskell.org/OOP_vs_type_classes#There_is_only_o...](https://wiki.haskell.org/OOP_vs_type_classes#There_is_only_one_dictionary_per_function_call)

------
discreteevent
Reenskaug did further work on this under the heading DCI.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_context_and_interaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_context_and_interaction)

------
ChrisRus
OOP is not a helpful paradigm for modeling systems. If it was, we would design
digital circuits with classes. But, of course that's not possible. Because
classes are absolutely a horrible metaphor for representing shared state at
runtime. And, that's most of what modern systems are doing. Have you ever
stopped to consider that a class API is effectively the pin-out to a chip
that's missing it's observable state vs input specification? Nobody would use
that chip because it's actually not adequately documented. And, so why people
think OOP is still a reasonable basis for building re-usable code and
expressing ideas about system architecture after decades of disappointment is
one of software enduring mysteries. My speculation is that the half-life of
talented engineers before they become managers is approximately equal to the
number of years you need to seriously struggle with OOP before you have enough
perspective to start having ideas of your own. And, then you switch to
management, and buy a book on design patterns, and kick the can to the next
generation.

~~~
skocznymroczny
Decades of disappointment? Most large software projects are still done with
OOP and it doesn't seem like any functional programming prodigy paradigm is
going to replace it any time soon.

OOP languages also happen to be some of the most popular languages around -
C#, Java, C++, Javascript. Coincidence? (in before nitpicking about how C++
and Javascript aren't OOP).

~~~
slifin
[https://unity.com/dots](https://unity.com/dots)

Take full advantage of today’s multicore processors with Unity’s new high-
performance, multithreaded Data-Oriented Technology Stack (DOTS).

DOTS makes great games run faster on multicore processors without the heavy
programming headache.

DOTS provides programmers with a convenient sandbox to write safe
multithreaded code for massive performance gains, while also optimizing
thermal control and battery life on players’ mobile devices. By moving from
object-oriented to data-oriented design, it will also be easier for you to
reuse your code and for others to understand and work on it.

The new Conversion Workflow converts your GameObjects to entities with one
click. At runtime, check the new Entity Preview Inspector to see how DOTS
turns your GameObjects into entities

~~~
slifin
Popular things can improve

------
ChrisRus
Note that the idea here is sound; identify and specify the roles of various
actors in detail specifying explicitly that they are not actual _classes_.
Effectively, this is high-level block diagram and there's every reason in the
world to have that clearly defined before actually building a system.

But, then when you go to actually implement and testing something designed
this way that's non-trivial. That's the point where I am arguing that OOP
should not be manner in which the implementation is expressed because the
paradigm is optimized for organizing functions that operate on common data
context. But, not for organizing actors that must share data and carefully
coordinate the which and in what order functions are applied to modify that
data.

~~~
andrekandre
> But, not for organizing actors that must share data and carefully coordinate
> the which and in what order functions are applied to modify that data.

you mean... the actor model?!

