[UPHPU] OOP continued
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
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