[outsourced]

Any recommendations as to which language one would want to use to learn object-oriented programming? What did you start with? And, please, don't say C++. I can't stand that language. Besides, I'm not going to be writing device drivers or compilers. However, if there are any Objective-C developers, I would appreciate your feedback about that language.

I've always been interested in Java, but have lately encountered other languages that might be better suited (?) to learning OOP concepts more easily: These are Python, Ruby, and PHP5. Not sure about RealBASIC -- besides, it's not FREE!

PHP would be Ok, but I'm more interested in using the language for general purpose applications -- not just web programming.

Ruby just isn't mainstream enough yet (IMHO), but at least it is more of a true OOP language that PHP or Python.

Python is mostly procedural with OOP functionality -- it's there if you want it. However, I'm not sure if transitioning from an "almost OOP" language to a true OOP language (Java) would be confusing.

Thanks for your input!

[Catfish_Man]

Objective-C is pretty much a decent language with a great API. As far as fun languages go, I rather like Io (http://www.iolanguage.com). Java is reasonably nice, and quite useful; it's what I started out on.

[szymczyk]

It depends on what you eventually want to do with what you learn. If you want to write Mac OS X applications, learn Objective C. If you want to get a job as a programmer, learn Java. If all you care about is learning object-oriented programming, take a look at Smalltalk. The site Why Smalltalk claims it's an easy language to learn object-oriented programming.

[outsourced]

Originally Posted by szymczyk

It depends on what you eventually want to do with what you learn. ...

Exactly the dilemma: Learn OOP now using, for example, Smalltalk; or learn Java or Objective-C knowing they'll still be useful application-building languages for future.

I think, perhaps, that I'm trying to leap to the end of the journey, while I should enjoy the trip. In other words, learn concepts with a language like Smalltalk (or the Io language), and then use that conceptual knowledge of OOP to learn Java or Obj-C.

Thanks for the input, so far. It really helps to see things from another's perspective and experience.

[oni]

Im in my last year of a software engineering degree, and the language that we learned while learning OO was java, in fact nearly everything we do is in java now that i think about it.

I would definetly recommend it

[Tesseract]

I use and love Ruby.

We could give better advice if we knew what language(s) you know already, if any.

[Dair Grant]

It depends on what you eventually want to do with what you learn.

Absolutely.

If you want to write Mac OS X applications, learn Objective C. If you want to get a job as a programmer, learn Java.

This I'm not so sure about.

When we look for a developer, C++ is almost essential. Obj-C or plain C is a useful starting point, but most desktop software development (Mac/Win/Linux) is done in C++. You don't need to know the more obscure features of the language, but being able to use objects/inheritance/polymorphism is.

It may just be a UK thing, but Java tends only to be used by people working in the financial sector (in my experience, which admittedly is of Mac development - but all the Java people I know work for banks ), even though it has taken over from Pascal as the language typically taught in SoftEng classes.

If you don't have a specific goal in mind, I would recommend learning a little of everything: pick a simple project like a memory manager, and write a couple of implementations in different languages to see the differences.

[outsourced]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I use and love Ruby.

We could give better advice if we knew what language(s) you know already, if any.

OOPs. Details, details.

Although my only recent programming (scripting, really) has been with AppleScript, XHTML, and CSS, my background is from Pascal, BASIC (the old MS Compiled BASIC), and database 4GLs like dBase and Foxpro. I haven't used those languages in years, though.

Recently I had to modify some Perl code (yuk!), but couldn't program a real app. in Perl from scratch if I had to.

That's really about it, I think.

[szymczyk]

Originally Posted by Dair Grant

When we look for a developer, C++ is almost essential. Obj-C or plain C is a useful starting point, but most desktop software development (Mac/Win/Linux) is done in C++.

It may just be a UK thing, but Java tends only to be used by people working in the financial sector

In the USA both C++ and Java are popular. The original poster didn't want to learn C++, which was why I recommended Java if he wanted to get a job.

[Tesseract]

Here are some languages that are of more than academic interest and that are OO, and some of their common uses:

"Pure" OO or reasonably close to it - I recommend starting with one of these.
- Ruby (scripting and web applications
- Python (scripting language, moved per fugu13's advice)
- Java ("Enterprise" level server apps; cross-platform GUI apps)
- C# (similar to Java. It's MS's language for .net programming - Windows apps and server side.)
- Objective C (Mac desktop apps)

OO (plus the kitchen sink):
- C++ (Windows apps, older [Carbon] Mac apps, some lower-level code)

Scripting languages with some OO support (mostly used for web apps):
- PHP
- Perl: OO "support" in Perl 5 is awful. Avoid Perl.
- JavaScript (web browser scripting) and ActionScript (Flash)

If you want a language that is free, fairly 'pure' OO, widely used, and fairly easy to learn, Java is probably your best bet.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

Here are some languages that are of more than academic interest and that are OO, and some of their common uses:

"Pure" OO or reasonably close to it - I recommend starting with one of these.
- Ruby (scripting and web applications
- Java ("Enterprise" level server apps; cross-platform GUI apps)
- C# (similar to Java. It's MS's language for .net programming - Windows apps and server side.)
- Objective C (Mac desktop apps)

I don't see how Objective-C is pure OO. It's an extension to C that allows OO syntax, but it's still C at its core.

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't see how Objective-C is pure OO. It's an extension to C that allows OO syntax, but it's still C at its core.

Right. But its OO support is so good that it seemed unfair to group it with the 'scripting languages with tacked-on OO support'. Sorry to confuse.

[goMac]

Learn Objective C. It enforces good OOP practices.

Don't look at C++. Don't even consider it. C++ is so backwards that after programming Obj-C for years before I had any formal C++ training C++ looks like a complete total mess.

When I started programming I was lucky enough to start with HyperTalk, which was fully OO. So I was brought up in programming using objects. The plus side of is that I have an advantage over others in using objects. The downside is I get more uncomfortable when using older C API's which are not OO.

[outsourced]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

... - Perl: OO "support" in Perl 5 is awful. Avoid Perl. ...

Avoid Perl.

Originally Posted by goMac

Don't look at C++

OK. No argument there.


Thanks for the fantastic input to a somewhat subjective topic, everyone!

[fugu13]

*cough*

Python's OO support is far better than that in Java, C#, or Objective-C. Especially in the latest release, its arguably the equal of Ruby's OO support, and certainly is in any way the typical programmer ever encounters.

They make some different choices as to what sort of OOP to support (there are quite a few different styles and approaches), but Python and Ruby are both about as Object Oriented as you get.

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by fugu13

*cough*

Python's OO support is far better than that in Java, C#, or Objective-C. Especially in the latest release, its arguably the equal of Ruby's OO support, and certainly is in any way the typical programmer ever encounters.

They make some different choices as to what sort of OOP to support (there are quite a few different styles and approaches), but Python and Ruby are both about as Object Oriented as you get.

OK. My own experience with Python is very limited, so I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I will correct my original post. Thanks.

[fugu13]

I can see how you might get that impression, its very easy to write procedural python code (or even fairly functional python code). What you won't notice, though, is that every one of those functions you write is a function object, for instance :-) .

[I was David B.]

I recommend to think about an application that you want to write or a type of applications that you like to work on.
And then choose the language that is suited best for this app.

Or think about what kind of company you want to work for.
And then - you guess what I recommend here

[ink]

Originally Posted by outsourced

Avoid Perl.

Hey, be careful... the Perl 5 OO paradigm is complete. Just because it doesn't force data protection on the programmer doesn't mean it's useless (although Perl6 does do this). Often, while writing in Java, I'll bang my head against the monitor in frustration with the verbosity of the language -- take IOException, for example. At times, my code becomes so full of try{}catch(IOException e){e.printStackTrace()} that it's hard to conentrate on what's actually being done. My choices? Wrap the whole method in a try{} block (which kind of makes the exceptions pointless), or throw it on up (where is may or may not be any better, but still is very inelegant). How about reading a file? You couldn't just... read it... oh, no, you must instantiate a FileInputStream, and wrap that in a BufferedInputStream (all wrapped up in try{} blocks, of course -- and don't forget to import the java.io objects you need!), and then read the damn thing...

While I'm complaining about Java, let me talk about my current fun: displaying images... In perl, it's a one-line job; in Java, it's pages and pages of Graphics objects, with double-buffered Images and BufferedImages, using Toolkit.* methods, and overriding paint() methods on extended JFrames.

OK, now, I really do like Java -- and every programming language has problems of one sort or another (the syntactic shortcuts in perl being a problem with it; unless you know Bourne shell REALLY well, it seems chaotic). I would highly reccomend learning Java. Netbeans rocks!

[ink]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

OK. My own experience with Python is very limited, so I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I will correct my original post. Thanks.

Limited... how?

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by ink

Hey, be careful... the Perl 5 OO paradigm is complete. Just because it doesn't force data protection on the programmer doesn't mean it's useless (although Perl6 does do this). Often, while writing in Java, I'll bang my head against the monitor in frustration with the verbosity of the language -- take IOException, for example. At times, my code becomes so full of try{}catch(IOException e){e.printStackTrace()} that it's hard to conentrate on what's actually being done. My choices? Wrap the whole method in a try{} block (which kind of makes the exceptions pointless), or throw it on up (where is may or may not be any better, but still is very inelegant). How about reading a file? You couldn't just... read it... oh, no, you must instantiate a FileInputStream, and wrap that in a BufferedInputStream (all wrapped up in try{} blocks, of course -- and don't forget to import the java.io objects you need!), and then read the damn thing...

While I'm complaining about Java, let me talk about my current fun: displaying images... In perl, it's a one-line job; in Java, it's pages and pages of Graphics objects, with double-buffered Images and BufferedImages, using Toolkit.* methods, and overriding paint() methods on extended JFrames.

OK, now, I really do like Java -- and every programming language has problems of one sort or another (the syntactic shortcuts in perl being a problem with it; unless you know Bourne shell REALLY well, it seems chaotic). I would highly reccomend learning Java. Netbeans rocks!

Perl's OO may be complete, but it 'feels' really hacked together. First of all, an object is just a thinly disguised glorified (aka blessed) hash. This can somethimes cause problems when attempting certain OO tasks (I don't remember the specific goal I had in mind when I first realized, 'OO in perl is disgusting', I just remember that moment. Sorry). Secondly, as you say, there is NO concept of data protection, something almost every other OO language offers. Third, the syntax for doing many simple OO tasks is arcane: "our @ISA = qw[ foo ];" ???

========

"Limited experience with Python" means I haven't used it much beyond reading/debugging some Python code (mailman, I think it was).

========

I agree that Java has its problems. The biggest, as you allude to, is the bloat and steep learning curve of its standard library (and many external libraries). Java's standard library doesn't go out of its way to make the common case much easier to deal with than the rare case. This is a problem. I think the wide usage of Java in the Real World and the fact that it has a good OO model outweigh the drawbacks, though, when it comes to selecting a first OO language.

[outsourced]

by Tesseract: the syntax for doing many simple OO tasks is arcane: "our @ISA = qw[ foo ];" ???

That's probably the main reason I'm prejudiced against Perl -- the undecipherable syntax.

More power to you Perl programmer's though. I'm not dissing it. Just sharing my own perspective.

Just last night I visited wikipedia and looked up NeXTSTEP and found myself an hour and a half later reading all about object-oriented programming and the different OOP languages.

I found myself saying things like "whoa", "cool", "holy crap" while reading about each language. I wasn't even really interested (very much, anyway) in Objective-C until I read about it -- wow! Java 6 (Mustang) and 7 (Dolphin)? Cool -- the codenames really make one wonder what new features they'll offer (Mustang=Fast?, Dolphin=umm...powers submarines?)

And, I just thought Python was procedural with only OOP if you want it? I was wrong.

Everyone has posted some great insights into these languages. Thanks. This has been a great topic!

[Mithras]

I'm a long time Perl user looking to kick the habit. I've been using Ruby for recent projects. It's a joy. The syntax is crystal clear, the semantics straightforward yet amazingly powerful -- really, if you haven't tried it yet, do so now.

The single best idea in Ruby is that of internal iterators, combined with closures -- why should you have to write

Code:
for (int i=0; i < sizeof(foo); i++) {
  Foo myFoo = foo[i];
  dostuff
}

or even

Code:
for (fooIterator iter = foo.begin(); iter != foo.end(); fooIter++) {
   Foo myFoo = *iter;
   doStuff
}

that's forcing you to know way too much about how this foo container works! Instead, in Ruby, you just do this:

Code:
foo.each { |myFoo|
doStuff
}

You're passing a block of code to the 'each' method of the foo container. The foo container will worry about the right way to iterate over its collection -- not you! This same method works across arrays, hashes, heaps, files (iterating over lines, or characters, or bytes), etc. It's a breath of fresh air.

[Mithras]

I hasten to add: I do think Java is the most practical OOP language to learn. there's tons of existing code, Java5 cuts down on some of the bloated syntax, and people will actually want to put you to use if you know it.

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'm a long time Perl user looking to kick the habit. I've been using Ruby for recent projects. It's a joy. The syntax is crystal clear, the semantics straightforward yet amazingly powerful -- really, if you haven't tried it yet, do so now.

I love Ruby, it's my favorite language right now, but just to be fair, don't you think "class << self" (aka the eigenclass) is a bit cryptic?

Being able to do

Code:
class Fixnum
  def kilobytes; self*1024; end
end
puts 640.kilobytes

is just cool though.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'm a long time Perl user looking to kick the habit. I've been using Ruby for recent projects. It's a joy. The syntax is crystal clear, the semantics straightforward yet amazingly powerful -- really, if you haven't tried it yet, do so now.

The single best idea in Ruby is that of internal iterators, combined with closures -- why should you have to write

Code:
for (int i=0; i < sizeof(foo); i++) {
  Foo myFoo = foo[i];
  dostuff
}

or even

Code:
for (fooIterator iter = foo.begin(); iter != foo.end(); fooIter++) {
   Foo myFoo = *iter;
   doStuff
}

that's forcing you to know way too much about how this foo container works! Instead, in Ruby, you just do this:

Code:
foo.each { |myFoo|
doStuff
}

You're passing a block of code to the 'each' method of the foo container. The foo container will worry about the right way to iterate over its collection -- not you! This same method works across arrays, hashes, heaps, files (iterating over lines, or characters, or bytes), etc. It's a breath of fresh air.

I think my favorite syntax for this is still:

Code:
foreach(Foo bar in Baz)
{
    bar.doStuff();
}

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

I think my favorite syntax for this is still:

Code:
foreach(Foo bar in Baz)
{
    bar.doStuff();
}

Ruby has:

Code:
for bar in baz
  baz.do_stuff
end

but the

Code:
baz.each { |bar| bar.do_stuff }

is preferred.

[Mithras]

And the follow-up advantage to the Ruby way is that it's not limited to the for-loop "do something with each item in this collection" paradigm. Instead, it recognizes that there are five or six standard loops that people write, and provides a mechanism such that any collection class, by implementing a single 'each' method, also gets all of those standard loop paradigms for free:

* the "for each item in the collection, do some stuff"
- this is the standard for loop, which Ruby does with
collection.each {|item| item.do_stuff }

* the "get me a new collection, containing one result for each item in the collection"
collection.map {|item| item.some_property + 1 }

* the "run through this collection, and gather up some kind of overall summary value"
collection.inject(0) {|sum, item| sum += item.value }

* the "run through this collection, and keep only some of them"
collection.select {|item| item.has_what_i_want? }

along with some rarer ones like:

* the "run through this collection, and divide into two parts"
piece1, piece2 = collection.partition {|item| item.has_what_i_want? }

etc.

anyway, I think it's neat!

[oexel]

I dont know how anyone can dislike c++. Maybe I've been walking "backwards" so long that I find walking "straight" awkward. With a good understanding of the language, I think you can write very clean, elegant code that obeys OO principles.

[itistoday]

Avoid C++ like the plague. Start with Java, it's really useful and you'll find yourself using it a lot for various projects you may need. Where you go from there is specific to your needs, but I can't stress how much C++ needs to be abandoned.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Avoid C++ like the plague. Start with Java, it's really useful and you'll find yourself using it a lot for various projects you may need. Where you go from there is specific to your needs, but I can't stress how much C++ needs to be abandoned.

Interesting. I've made my living writing C++ code, and its been very good to me. Best language to learn for OOP? No, of course not. But it really is amazing to see it get such a bum rap given how important its been (the language used for almost every major desktop application -- Mac or Windows -- in the past 15 years).

[ink]

Originally Posted by Mithras

The single best idea in Ruby is that of internal iterators, combined with closures

In Java5:

Code:
for (String s : strings) {
  s.dosomething();
}

I like a lot of the changes in Java5

[GeeYouEye]

If you just want to learn OOP, go with Smalltalk. For something a bit more "wow!"-inducing that's still OO, learn Io (Eye-oh, like the Jovian moon). For getting a job in the current market, Java, or if you just want to be a Mac developer (well, there is GNUstep for Win & Linux but it's not very good yet), Objective-C (I have the most fun programming with this). For multipurpose use (web, Mac, *nix), go with Ruby - for the web, Ruby on Rails is the first serious competitor WebObjects has had. There's also a Ruby-Cocoa bridge, so you can use Foundation and AppKit classes, but in Ruby. And of course you can use it as a regular interpreter.

Other languages to avoid besides C++: perl, C#, PHP (for the OO; it's fine in general), and Python (it's Scheme pretending to be something else).

[tikki]

If you just want to learn OOP Python and Ruby are great languages to start with.

I personally prefer Ruby (Rails rails Rails)

[Chuckit]

Ruby is the closest thing to Smalltalk that doesn't date from the '80s.

[aquaclear]

I second err third oh anyway..

i also put my vote for ruby. It gets out of the way and you are just doing the job and not worrying about the language. It is very natural feeling.

Oh and ruby on rails is the cat's meow!