The Limits of Object-Oriented Programming
As a programmer, I have come to appreciate the importance of object-oriented programming (OOP) in creating modular and reusable code. However, as I once discovered while developing a game in C#, there are limits to OOP that can hinder the efficiency and functionality of a program. In this article, I will share my experience and the lessons I learned from this project.
First, a little background. Gaming is not my primary area of expertise, but I have always been interested in game development as a hobby. A few years ago, I decided to create a simple 2D game using C# and the MonoGame library. I had some programming experience, but this was my first time creating a game from scratch. I knew that OOP was important for game development, as it allows for easy organization and management of game objects such as characters, enemies, and items. Therefore, I decided to use OOP principles to structure game. Initially, everything seemed to be going well. I created a class for each game object, with methods and properties that defined its behavior and interactions with other objects. However, as I started to add more functionality to the game, I began to notice some problems with my OOP approach.
One problem was the excessive growth in the number of classes. As the game grew more complex, I found myself creating more and more classes to handle different aspects of the game. For example, I had classes for sound effects, input handling, and collision detection. This made the codebase difficult to manage and slowed down development time. Additionally, because each class was designed to handle only one specific task, there was a lot of redundant code, leading to larger and less efficient code. To address this issue, I tried using design patterns like the Singleton pattern. This allowed me to ensure that only one instance of a particular class was created, reducing the number of classes in my codebase and making it easier to manage. Another issue was the difficulty in managing the relationships between objects. In OOP, objects are often interconnected and dependent on each other. This can create complex dependencies that is difficult to navigate and manage. I found that making changes to one object often required changes to multiple other objects, which made it difficult to debug and maintain. Other than that, I encountered problems with performance. MonoGame is a relatively low-level library, meaning that I had to write much of the game logic myself. As my codebase grew larger and more complex, I found that the game was starting to run slowly and laggy. I realized that the OOP approach I had taken was not optimized for performance, and that I needed to rethink my design.
So, what did I learn from this experience? Firstly, I learned that OOP is not a silver bullet. While it can be useful for structuring code and making it more modular, it has its limits. In particular, OOP can lead to increase of classes and redundant code, as well as complex dependencies. Secondly, I learned that performance is a key consideration in game development, and that OOP may not always be the best choice for performance-critical applications. Finally, I learned that there is no substitute for experience — sometimes, the best way to learn is by doing.
In conclusion, my experience developing a game in C# and MonoGame taught me some valuable lessons about the limits of OOP. While OOP can be a useful tool for organizing code, it can also lead to issues with code management, object relationships, and performance. I now approach OOP with a more critical eye, taking into account the specific requirements and constraints of each project.
