Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?

[hg]

Chris Carlen wrote:

> Hi:
> 
>  From what I've read of OOP, I don't get it.  I have also found some
> articles profoundly critical of OOP.  I tend to relate to these articles.
> 
> However, those articles were no more objective than the descriptions of
> OOP I've read in making a case.  Ie., what objective
> data/studies/research indicates that a particular problem can be solved
> more quickly by the programmer, or that the solution is more efficient
> in execution time/memory usage when implemented via OOP vs. procedural
> programming?
> 
> The problem for me is that I've programmed extensively in C and .asm on
> PC DOS way back in 1988.  Then didn't program for nearly 10 years during
> which time OOP was popularized.  Starting in 1999 I got back into
> programming, but the high-level-ness of PC programming and the
> completely foreign language of OOP repelled me.  My work was in analog
> and digital electronics hardware design, so naturally I started working
> with microcontrollers in .asm and C.  Most of my work involves low-level
> signal conditioning and real-time control algorithms, so C is about as
> high-level as one can go without seriously loosing efficiency.  The
> close-to-the-machine-ness of C is ideal here.  This is a realm that I
> truly enjoy and am comfortable with.
> 
> Hence, being a hardware designer rather than a computer scientist, I am
> conditioned to think like a machine.  I think this is the main reason
> why OOP has always repelled me.
> 
> Perhaps the only thing that may have clicked regarding OOP is that in
> certain cases I might prefer a higher-level approach to tasks which
> involve dynamic memory allocation.  If I don't need the execution
> efficiency of C, then OOP might produce working results faster by not
> having to worry about the details of memory management, pointers, etc.
> 
> But I wonder if the OOP programmers spend as much time creating classes
> and trying to organize everything into the OOP paradigm as the C
> programmer spends just writing the code?
> 
> Ultimately I don't care what the *name* is for how I program.  I just
> need to produce results.  So that leads back to objectivity.  I have a
> problem to solve, and I want to find a solution that is as quick as
> possible to learn and implement.
> 
> Problem:
> 
> 1.  How to most easily learn to write simple PC GUI programs that will
> send data to remote embedded devices via serial comms, and perhaps
> incorporate some basic (x,y) type graphics display and manipulation
> (simple drawing program).  Data may result from user GUI input, or from
> parsing a text config file.  Solution need not be efficient in machine
> resource utilization.  Emphasis is on quickness with which programmer
> can learn and implement solution.
> 
> 2.  Must be cross-platform: Linux + Windows.  This factor can have a big
> impact on whether it is necessary to learn a new language, or stick with
> C.  If my platform was only Linux I could just learn GTK and be done
> with it.  I wouldn't be here in that case.
> 
> Possible solutions:
> 
> Form 1:  Use C and choose a library that will enable cross-platform GUI
> development.
> 
> Pro:  Don't have to learn new language.
> Con:  Probably will have difficulty with cross-platform implementation
> of serial comms.  This will probably need to be done twice.  This will
> waste time.
> 
> Form 2:  Use Python and PySerial and TkInter or wxWidgets.
> 
> Pro:  Cross-platform goal will likely be achieved fully.  Have a
> programmer nearby with extensive experience who can help.
> Con:  Must learn new language and library.  Must possibly learn a
> completely new way of thinking (OOP) not just a new language syntax.
> This might be difficult.
> 
> Form 3:  Use LabVIEW
> 
> Pro:  I think that the cross-platform goal can be met.
> Con:  Expensive.  I would prefer to use an Open Source solution.  But
> that isn't as important as the $$$.  I have also generally found the 2D
> diagrammatical programming language of "G" as repelling as OOP.  I
> suspect that it may take as much time to learn LabVIEW as Python.  In
> that case the time spent on Python might be better spent since I would
> be learning something foundational as opposed to basically just learning
> how to negotiate someone's proprietary environment and drivers.
> 
> 
> Comments appreciated.
> 
> 
> --
> Good day!
> 
> ________________________________________
> Christopher R. Carlen
> Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist
> Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
> crcarleRemoveThis at BOGUSsandia.gov
> NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and
> "BOGUS" from email address to reply.


yes, maybe you should look at UML first.

hg