Interesting article, although I disagree with 'the spirit' of it. IMO, you cannot write OOP code the same way you write procedural code: you have to think different (no pun intended) - and the error that was made is to consider C++ as a better C, for instance -.
Once you know/decide 'what to do','who is acting' and 'what is involved', your classes and methods and relationships are obvious, and you can start to code 'object', even as a prototype or a simple approach.
Then, 'refactoring' sounds more like 'refining' to me, as OOP coding is also an iterative process... but not in the way you describe.
But I totally agree with your conclusions ;)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Interesting article, although I disagree with 'the spirit' of it. IMO, you cannot write OOP code the same way you write procedural code: you have to think different (no pun intended) - and the error that was made is to consider C++ as a better C, for instance -.
Once you know/decide 'what to do','who is acting' and 'what is involved', your classes and methods and relationships are obvious, and you can start to code 'object', even as a prototype or a simple approach.
Then, 'refactoring' sounds more like 'refining' to me, as OOP coding is also an iterative process... but not in the way you describe.
But I totally agree with your conclusions ;)