[UPHPU] OOP continued

dataw0lf digitalsuicide at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 12:17:57 MDT 2005


Jeffrey Moss wrote:
> That's a pretty bold statement you make about OOP programmers. I think
> what you're missing here Josh is that once you start putting your
> functions into libraries and using global variables and some sort of
> namespace identifier, ie: WebApp_version instead of WebApp::version, you
> might as well be using classes. 

1) I'm unsure why you're addressing me by my first name.  Do I know you?
 If you did, you might know that my favorite language is heavily object
orientated.

2) What bold statement (did a quote from me magically disappear)?  I
said that in many cases, OOP programmers tend to 'jump the gun' when it
comes to using OOP.  I think that there are certainly areas that OOP is
great at;  I'm just saying that applying OOP to any and all code is
ridiculous, just as applying a procedural/functional methodology to any
and all code is ridiculous.  Reread my statements.  'best tool for the
job' and so forth.

I don't constrain myself to any design paradigm (although I agree that
unit testing is still underused, despite the recent popularity of late),
I use what's best.  I just think that there's a vast number of OOP guys
out there (many straight from college, where their profs poisoned their
brain with Java ;) ) who either don't know, or don't care, what choice
they're making when they decide to use OOP.  It's just _all_ they know.


-- 

Joshua Simpson -- dataw0lf.org
Lead Network Administrator/Engineer Aero-Graphics Inc.
jsimpson at aero-graphics.com



More information about the UPHPU mailing list