In SAP ABAP, what is the difference between classic ABAP and Object Oriented ABAP (OOABAP), and when is OOABAP typically preferred?

Introduction / Context:
SAP ABAP began as a procedural language but evolved to include object oriented features, resulting in Object Oriented ABAP (OOABAP). Modern SAP development, including many frameworks and tools, relies heavily on OOABAP concepts. Interviewers ask this question to see whether you understand how OOABAP extends classic ABAP and when it is advantageous to use object oriented designs in SAP projects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

- ABAP is the primary programming language for SAP applications.

- Classic ABAP uses a procedural style with forms, function modules, and global data.

- OOABAP introduces classes, interfaces, and objects on top of the ABAP language.

- Many modern SAP frameworks encourage or require OOABAP.

Concept / Approach:
Classic ABAP programs are mainly structured as procedural flows with event blocks and global data structures. While this works for simple reports and customizations, it can become difficult to manage in large or reusable code bases. OOABAP introduces object oriented concepts such as classes, interfaces, inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism. These features support better modularization, reusability, and testability. OOABAP is widely used in newer frameworks, including ALV Object Model, Web Dynpro, and many SAP standard applications. For complex, long lived, or framework based development, OOABAP is generally preferred.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify that classic ABAP uses procedural constructs like form routines and function modules. Step 2: Recognize that OOABAP extends ABAP with object oriented constructs such as classes and methods. Step 3: Recall that OOABAP supports object oriented principles including encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism. Step 4: Note that OOABAP is often required by modern SAP frameworks, especially for complex or reusable components. Step 5: Select option A because it clearly states both the added features and the typical use cases where OOABAP is preferred.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider a real world SAP project where you implement a complex business process involving multiple screens, services, and reusable components. Using OOABAP, you can model business entities as classes, encapsulate logic in methods, and reuse code across transactions. Many SAP standard classes and frameworks, such as CL SALV TABLE for ALV and Web Dynpro controllers, are written in OOABAP. This indicates that object orientation is now central to modern SAP development, confirming the explanation in option A.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is incorrect because OOABAP is not limited to database administration; it is widely used for user interfaces and business logic. Option C is wrong because OOABAP does not remove internal tables; instead, it uses them together with classes. Option D is incorrect because OOABAP is not a graphical design tool; it is a programming paradigm within ABAP, although tools such as screen painters may be used alongside it.

Common Pitfalls:
One pitfall is to continue writing large procedural programs in environments where OOABAP would provide better modularity and testability. Another mistake is to think OOABAP is completely separate from classic ABAP, rather than an extension that allows procedural and object oriented code to coexist. In interviews, highlight that OOABAP enables cleaner architecture and is preferred for complex and reusable applications, especially when working with modern SAP frameworks and technologies.

Final Answer:
OOABAP extends classic ABAP with object oriented features such as classes, objects, inheritance, and polymorphism, and it is typically preferred for complex, modular, and reusable SAP applications such as modern GUI and Web Dynpro projects.