ARCHITECTURE + FRAMEWORKS + OOP
OCTOBER  | RAILSBRIDGE LA  | 10.24
presented by Anna Mendoza at LAX Chamber of Commerce
contents
intro: hi!
what exactly is OOP?
the structure of an object
what is a framework?
4 big parallels: physical to the abstract
resources

hello



 happy pre-halloween! 

anna here!

  I'm designer with a heavy Product Design Background.  
  I come to software from the physical world.  

  The world in which creating something  
  is affected conceptually, contextually and ultimately  
  by the limitations of the physical.  




I didn't start coding at 14

when I was a kid...

 

I didn't get the legos...

I didn't get the erector set...

or the cool barbie...

  but that's another story  
  Instead, I would look at how everything was constructed,  
  and much to the dismay of my father...  


I would take it apart.

radios...

bikes...


blenders...

ANYTHING REALLY!!

  Of course, I didn't know how to put it  
  all back together...  

sorry, dad!   } : > (


( he was mad alot back then )

I even did this with food :

I conned my baby brother into believing, that it was much more exciting to eat the contents of a sandwich individually than together. It worked a few times.

sorry, lil' bro!   } : > (

Just so you know:

I'm 50% Italian - 50% French

( the two cultures that hate each + married each other )


  The fights were FABULOUS!   

The big take-away:

  The physical experience of modularity was fascinating  
  enough to inch me towards a career in building stuff.  
  I was hooked, but what was all this?  

  I didn't know anything about it until I got to college.  
  Then I discovered what 'it' was: Product Design."  


when I found 'it', I was happily lost...

20+ years go by...


I work at agencies, design firms, then freelance and finally open curve!
As curve I provide: DESIGN + ART DIRECTION + PRODUCT DESIGN

fast forward to now >

Now I live in the abstract...

  And one of most interesting things to me, is how much  
  of my traditional training from the physical is informing  
  me in this abstract world.  


PHYSICAL + ABSTRACT


Especially in their semantics and powerful syntax.

It’s the ‘pattern of language’ from both disciplines that I see the deepest parallels.

Both define concepts as COMPOSSIBLE.

 A door is a re-usable concept that  

 is compossible. 

A door has a handle, a set of panels, lockset, and a standard

set of dimensions ( many little concepts ) that work within a

framework of walls; walls create a room ( a concept ) and

rooms create living spaces ( another concept ) and connecting

these spaces could be a hallway ( yet another concept. )

Together these patterns compose a house ( the big concept ).

An architectural framework provides taxonomy, methods and

processes that define underlying dependencies & approaches.

Sound familiar?

  In OOP, an object is also a re-usable concept,  
  that works together with other objects to form  
  reusable patterns. This is accomplished on frameworks.  

Just like in Architecture.

Before I go further, I think it's important
to note the work of architect,
Christopher Alexander, Prof. Emeritus of Architecture at UC Berkeley.

He coined the phrase, created the movement and wrote the book:

‘A Pattern Language’

For those of you that don’t know what
'A Pattern Language' is, it’s basically his theory
where a network of patterns call upon one
another in a syntactical language to form a framework.
Like every language it's got a vocabulary, a syntax and grammar. But the difference is in how it works to solve complex problems / activity vs. pure communication. Just like words they have a semantic relationship to each other to be useful.

Here's the breakdown:
vocabulary: is the language description; which are the named solutions that describe the solution to a problem.
They're the 'design patterns'.
For instance: 'A Place to Wait', describes the pattern for a space for waiting, i.e.: a bus stop,a hospital waiting room.

more >

All intersect, cross-reference each other and provide the path through a design process that renders a solution to the architect or designer and even the
un-initiated.

Breakdown Cont.:
syntax: describes where the solution fits in the larger more abstract context. How the arrangement of the design pattern works in the context of the larger solution. Like how light works in room, for instance.

grammar: describes how the solution solves the problem or
provides a benefit.

more >

 It organized complexity into 
 simple reusable design patterns 

What was so revolutionary about the effort was how it
identified a problem occurring over and over again,
and prescribed a, pattern or core solution in such a way that one could use the solution a million times over without ever having to do it the same way twice.
It did this syntacticly and semanticly.

It holistically mirrored reality and provided a starting point simplifying the design work from any part of the problem
- known and unknown parts.

A bi-product was the efficiency of a system.

Christopher Alexander pioneered this thinking for many
reasons, but his key reason, was to affect the people interacting with the architecture positively.

Another key reason, was to make architecture accessible to participate in, thru the use of re-usable patterns.

I would argue that good UX - User Experience is doing just that, making high-touch user interfaces seamless and enjoyable.

And OOP, is making use of design patterns to produce code that is easy to read, maintain and re-use.

Writing code should be a positive thing!  : + )

This kind of thinking began showing up in the 70's in
programming culture that produced these languages:
Simula, LISP, Smalltalk 80, Smalltalk and in the pre-cursor to UX: IA or Information Architecture... then in the 80's with Python and Eiffel... and finally in the 90's with Javascript, php and Ruby and Ruby on Rails.

A LITTLE HISTORY:

There's ton of people behind this effort: Alan Kay, Adele Goldberg, PARC LABS , Richard Saul Wurman ( TED CREATOR ) and the "Gang of Four" are the early pioneers - too many to mention! Ultimately however; it's origin is Chris Alexander's work with a 'pattern language' that made this all possible.

Ruby on Rails has the same offerings:
Ruby is a dynamic reflective
object-oriented scripting language and Rails is a Framework that it works with.

OTHER FRAMEWORKS INCLUDE:

Sinatra, RubyMine, and many more at the Ruby Toolbox .

Where Ruby provides the syntax,
Rails provides the patterns.

In Rails one of the big ideas is Convention over Configuration.
Which basically means use a standard! Write DRY code: Don't repeat yourself. And keep concepts highly 'cohesive', basically contextually relevant.

Easy right? : > O

By developing a set of objects in a standardized pattern, you can build a program 'easier'. You might not know about the complexity you’re working with, but the genius of Rails is that because it’s built with standards you can ask the collective and they'll grock your code. At 2am, Stackoverflow can be very handy, eh?

But what exactly is Object Oriented Programming?

  Just like in architecture, software engineers start by defining the  

  problem. In programming, theres are many ways to ‘code’, so  

  I'm going to mention just two to give you guys some contrast  

  in thinking.  


  PROCEDURE vs. OBJECT ORIENTED  


With Procedural Programming:

It’s ACTIONS or FUNCTIONS first, and then the DATA that those functions will act upon second.

  It’s more akin to defining the tasks to build something, and then  

  considering what that ‘something’ is.  

Languages include: ColdFusion, C, Pascal, Fortran, Basic.
A bit out of date? Maybe.





In Object Oriented Programming:

It’s DATA first and ACTIONS or Functions second.

  It’s more like deciding what your building and then defining tasks  

  ( arguments ) and functions that it will take to build it.  

Languages include: Perl, Eiffel, Ruby, Python, Objective C.




This makes me think of how simplicity is being achieved in product design.

"The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction."

- John Maeda, “Laws of Simplicity”

reduce

Think about that. This simplifies things.
Everything gets a chance to be clearly defined
with a naming convention, a taxonomy.
It also unifies a thinking process,
makes us programmers consider the
whole vs. just a singular behavior.

Let's look at the structure of an 'object'. Wiki sez:

    In OOP, concepts are "objects" that have data fields known as    

   attributes or members ( arrays of parameters or hashes )    

    that describe the object and associated procedures known    

   "methods” that use the attributes to define the object.   


  okay, but what does that look like?   


class Song


  attr_reader :lyrics

     def initialize(lyrics)
       @lyrics = lyrics
     end
     def sing_me_a_song()
       for line in @lyrics
         puts line
       end
     end
  end

  aretha_sez = Song.new(["Chain, chain, chain!",
                       "Chain, chain, chain!",                      
                       "Chain, chain, chain... Chain of Foooools!"])

  aretha_sez_again = Song.new(["For five long years",
                              "I thought you were my man",
                              "But I found out",
                              "I'm just a link in your chain!"])
  pass_a_var = aretha_sez_again                       

  aretha_sez.sing_me_a_song()
  pass_a_var.sing_me_a_song()

Objects in OOP use
Class Based Inheritance to
define themselves.

  Which means an object is an instance of a class.  

  A 'thing' to exist, must belong to an Archetype.  


  so, what does that look like?  



A Class is a data type definition and usually represents a person place or thing. It’s the noun.

  Each class is defined by its attributes.  


  Attributes come in two basic flavors:  

  FIELDS & METHODS  



Lets say I make door class:

  class Door  
  attr_reader : wood, :handle, : color, : material, : texture  

The type of wood, the type of door handle, the shade of color, the type of material, the kind of texture, etc. All these things are instance variables - the 'members' of the class that get updated.

  classes can be composed of other classes,  

  passed in by methods, inheritance and modules.   

   

class Door
  attr_accessor :wood, :handle, :color, :material, :texture
  def initialize( wood, handle, color, material, texture )
    @wood = wood
    @handle = handle
    @color = color
    @material  = material
    @texture = texture
  end


  def open_sesame
    if @handle == "door knob"
      puts "Door uses a door knob"
    elsif @handle == "lever"
      puts "Door uses a lever."
    else
    end
  end
end

my_door = Door.new("recycled", "door knob", "honey", "mahagony", "fine")
my_door.handle = "lever"
my_door.open_sesame
Classes are the blueprint for the creation of actual pieces of data. And just like Architecture, it’s the blueprint to make the ‘thing’ that is composed of other ‘things’.

Methods are the other attribute of a class which define behavior. They’re the verbs.

  They are the task-masters of the class.  

  Each new object of a class gets to update its data attributes,  

  while Methods of that class only have one location in memory.  


  Methods will manage all the vars passed to them.   

    


class Door
  attr_accessor :wood, :handle, :color, :material, :texture
    def initialize( wood, handle, color, material, texture )
    @wood = wood
    @handle = handle
    @color = color
    @material  = material
    @texture =texture
  end


  def open_sesame
    if @handle == "door knob"
      puts "Door uses a door knob"
    elsif @handle == "lever"
      puts "Door uses a lever."
    else
    end
  end
end

my_door = Door.new("recycled", "door knob", "honey", "mahagony", "fine")
my_door.handle = "lever"
my_door.open_sesame
Methods like 'open_sesame' pass the args that define the value of the instance variable 'handle'. If, elseif and else do
the work defining the outcomes in the method.

Inheritance. Data types in classes can overlap and include attributes from another class, which means that the same attributes can exist in another class, a superclass.

  This is best described in the 'method lookup path' :  

  where Ruby traverses up the class hierarchy to find a given method. 

  Inheritance formalizes relationships between classes.  

 Check it out >  

Let's look at that door again:


  Basic Object  

^ a superclass

  Object  

^ a superclass

  (Module) Moveable_Structure.dimensions  

^ a superclass

  (Class) Door.handle  

^ a superclass

  (Object) mydoor = Door.new    


What is Ruby doing?   


  mydoor = Door.new  

  my door.handle => "lever"  

  mydoor.dimensions => "5 x 9"  

  mydoor.inspect => "#Door:Ox3dfcae"  



Ruby is literally going up the tree to find the methods. So 'myDoor' is an object; an instance of the 'Door' Class. And 'myDoor.handle' is a Method of the 'Door' Class. And the class 'Door' is an instance of the Module 'Moveable_Structure'. And 'myDoor.dimensions' is a method that exists in that Module. But in the end all of these 'things' are Objects that are defined by the Basic Object.


Encapsulation. The idea here is that the attributes of an object should only be read or written by the methods of that class.

  What we're doing is organizing our environment, by concealing   

  the details of the class from objects sending messages to that class.  

  We're 'hiding' info, making 'things' tidy and discreet.  

  And in the end modular.  

 
organize

But what should go with what?
Maeda calls it the 'Slip' method.
And OPP calls it 'Solid':

SORT               SINGLE RESPONSIBILITY
LABEL             OPEN-CLOSED
INTEGRATE   LISKOV SUBSTITUTION
PRIORITIZE    INTERFACE SEGREGATION            
                          DEPENDENCY INVERSION PRINCIPLE

  These principles keep you from making spaghetti code.  

  Code that's hard to manage and modify  

And why do we do all these things? John again says it best.


  Savings in time feels like simplicity.  

  It’s perfectly said and applicable to both disciplines;  

  If you write Dry code + design, you save tons of time.  




 
Let's see that sunset, right? 

MVC.   It's the software architecture of Rails:
Model | View | Controller   Aside from dividing a program into 3 parts - it also clarifies how all parts interact. It's the pattern where the Model defines the business logic, app logic, and functions . The Controller is the intermediary between Views and Model. The Views are the client sized expressions.


 There's alot more to it, obviously >..< !    

I'm going to wrapp it up here with 

4 parallels that are worth noting.

2 that are indirections and 2 that

are total compliments. 

Parallel No.1   

Abstract Semantics


  Everything is an object... Okay.   

  So how often are we saying:  WHERE IS 'IT' ? ? ?  

  At least in Architecture you can find 'it'.   

Parallel No.2   

Patterns are Everywhere

  Design & Realization of Patterns  
  are now more then ever intertwined  
  making this a major cross-over.  

Parallel No.3

Why We Build

  Problem solving at it's core  
  For purpose + necessity  
  For functional outcomes  
  Efficiency a big driver  
  Efficacy will create your user-base  
  To be challenged... boredom sucks!  
  Build to change the world  

Parallel No.4             

Interesting Development Cycles

  Architecture is driven by concepts, theories and DRAWING  
   Programming is driven by concepts, theories and WRITING 

Resources


A Pattern Language:   http://www.patternlanguage.com/aims/intro.html
Christopher Alexander:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander

John Maeda:   http://lawsofsimplicity.com/
Object Hierarchy:   http://drtom.ch/posts/2011/12/11/Rubys_Object_Model_and_Eigenclasses/
Object Oriented Programming:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

Dave Thomas:   http://pragdave.pragprog.com/

Ruby Syntax:  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming/Syntax/Classes

Ruby Toolbox:  https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/




THANK YOU!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

ARCHITECTURE , FRAMEWORKS AND OOP

By Anna Mendoza

Made with Slides.com

ARCHITECTURE , FRAMEWORKS AND OOP

An exploration of software concepts through the eyes of a product designer.

  • 3,633

More from Anna Mendoza