Converting procedural type code to OO code

[Mohitz]

Any pointers as to how one should go about porting procedural type
code into object
oriented code??

 

[liqfemail]

Any pointers as to how one should go about porting procedural type
code into object
oriented code??

From my perspective, the most importance point is that you should put

data and relevant operations in one class. What's more, only when
necessary, data and operations should be "public".
In addition, inheritance, encapsulation and polymorphism are the three
major characteristics of object-oriented programming.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Any pointers as to how one should go about porting procedural type
code into object
oriented code??

Simple: don't.

If you have a model you need to program, program that model.
But don't "port" anything anywhere.

V

 

[osmium]

Simple: don't.

If you have a model you need to program, program that model.
But don't "port" anything anywhere.

That sounds like pretty good advice to me. I wonder if that is how
Microsoft Foundation Classes came to be? Someone told someone to convert
the code into objects and they came up with wrappers that no one outside of
Redmond could love.

If you are told to do it and can't get out of it, I would say "just do it".

 

[Jim Langston]

Any pointers as to how one should go about porting procedural type
code into object
oriented code??

Object oriented code is a different paradigm than procedural code. Meaning
that the design of the entire program is usually different in an OOPs
langauge than a procedural language. Trying to force procedural code into
OOPs wrappers doesn't do much to change the paradigm of the code itself.

So basically, don't.

It is better to design an object oriented program from the ground up.