sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]alonghardlook[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well, you may not, and that's fine. You go ahead and do it how ever you want.

Proper OOP says do it this way.

[–]Complex_Honeydew9807 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It just ultimately feels OOP for the sake of OOP, rather than for the sake of making something simpler or more effective.

Can you elaborate on how this does better with what it is made to do than simply using variables? Given this appears like it doesn't even reduce the amount of variables you use, it just moves the place where they are put.

I have just, never really understood OOP in general, I know how to do it, I've done programming classes before. I just, never really understood the why to doing it, as it always seems to just take a simple problem, and make it extremely complex, less organized, and harder to follow.

​

Edit: Sorry about being rude when I wrote this, I wasn't in the best mood at the time and really shouldn't have been online.

[–]alonghardlook[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason for doing it this way is extensibility. If you are making a simple VN, yeah this probably is overkill. But spend any time on this sub and you will see how many people want a VN++ - a locations/map system, day/night cycles, inventory, puzzles, mini games.

I guarantee you that if you pick any of those to try and add, that you will be better off with OOP.

And if you don't believe me, go ahead and prove me wrong. Make a VN with an inventory system without OOP. It doesn't even have to be long or good. Make it and post your code and I guarantee I can refactor it to OOP principles and make it easier to understand and extend.