views:

279

answers:

7
A: 

oo seems to be overkill for a simple checkbook app. Try something on a larger scale like something to manage all your financial accounts. This way designing an account class would make sense

ennuikiller
+1  A: 

Well, OO may well be overkill, but it is excellent practice. Any code monkey can write procedural code. Its the path of least resistance in every case, which is why most people use it for one off apps that don't do much. However, if you're writing to get experience in working with OO, than it is best to think of it that way. You could start by designing an object that manages financial transaction, then you will also need a way to interact with the DB. Perhaps you could write a DB layer where you abstract away the database calls from the transaction object using the Entity framework where you could learn LINQ (or whatever the JAVA equivalent is). This is all assuming that you are doing this for fun and practice.

Steve
+4  A: 

I'd suggest OO - it's not harder than procedural programming, actually easier to maintain with the right tool. Delphi would be my choice - great DB programming support, visual designer, strongly-typed, plenty of components available. There are many great applications that are written in Delphi. Often underestimated, there are many reasons it's got a loyal following.

Now I'll duck as the Delphi-haters load up with tomatoes.

Argalatyr
+1.. The fact that many popular database editors are made with Delphi should be a clue. To name a few: the default tools that come with MySQL (MySQL Administrator and MySQL and QueryBrowser), Toad (Oracle), Navicat, HeidiSQL, PG Lighting Admin, LiteSpeed, are all created with Delphi.
Wouter van Nifterick
A: 

Well it depends on your motivation. If you want a checkbook application as quickly as possible, just churn out the procedural code. No-one other than you will know the difference. If you want to use this application to better yourself as aprogrammer. Take the time to learn how to write in in OO.

John Nolan
A: 

I'd go with Python: no compiling and uses dynamic typing (you can use strict typing too if you want). Plus, it has a huge following in the open source community which means great support, tools, and documentation for free.

As for OO vs. Procedural -- all these languages you've mentioned could be written in a procedural style -- that is, one big class/method that does everything -- but you'll soon find that you'll want to follow DRY principles (Don't Repeat Yourself) and start with some private methods that do one particular thing well. From then, you'll want to group similar things into separate classes, and then from there you'll want to abstract those classes... see where I'm going here?

gravyface
You don't need OOP in order to be DRY.
Ionuț G. Stan
I agree with Python. You can mix programming styles, using classes but also stand-alone functions (and functional style stuff, too.) Because there's less scaffolding than in other languages, there's less code to refactor if you want to experiment with different approaches. I've started out with a lot of procedural stuff in a project and gradually refactored to more OO as things got more involved.
Anon
Python seems to have great standing with writers, but low standing with users.
Marco van de Voort
A: 

In my opinion you should concentrate less on the OO versus procedural thing. If you have the possibility to go procedural in the beginning, then go procedural. It's the easiest thing you can do to get you started. The OO thing, on the other hand, may just as well qualify as YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It).

What you should do though, is to write tests, unit tests and then integration tests. And you should strive to write tests first. This way, even if you begin with a procedural application you may later on refactor it into a full-fledged OO application. But, only if you need objects. These tests will be you're safety net when moving around code in your application.

Trying to think your applications into object from the beginning may lead you to an point where you're stuck with your class hierarchies and architecture.

I'm not a genius, so I may be wrong, but in my experience, starting with simple functions and then thinking about grouping them into objects or modules is better than starting by saying: OK, I'll have this object that interacts with this object, which is implementing pattern X, so this way I'll decouple interface Y from implementation Z. Later on, you may observe that your domain model is weak. Take an evolutionary design path and start with small building blocks.

Ionuț G. Stan
A: 

If you are looking for a quick app that you can extend, check out Dynamic Data.

Chance