[UPHPU] OOP continued

Jeffrey Moss jeff at opendbms.com
Wed Jun 29 13:35:25 MDT 2005


Well you use procedural programming in low level stuff because that's how 
it's done. You write kernel modules in C, not C++. The API is in C. These 
days windows programmers have the option of using the .NET framework instead 
of win32 API, and most use .NET. Kernel modules would be perfect 
applications of objects, but the slowdown is probably not worth it.

-Jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "dataw0lf" <digitalsuicide at gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey Moss" <jeff at opendbms.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [UPHPU] OOP continued


> Jeffrey Moss wrote:
>> 1. I call you by your real name because that's how you address yourself
>> in your sig. If you prefer I will call you dataw0lf.
>>
>> 2. "Perhaps I should say OOP programmers don't understand functional
>> programming often ?"
>>
>> I made a case for *always* using OO, which I dont think anybody else has
>> said, I think your design decisions are probably centered on which
>> database you will use or whatever, if OO were more widely used the
>> advantages would be plain as day. I didn't misunderstand you, I am
>> argueing against you. No need to get defensive.
>>
>
> I didn't take anything personal, I just thought you might know me.  It's
> strange enough in real life to be called by my given name, let alone on
> a mailing list.
>
> I thought you were saying I was saying that 'procedural programming was
> always the way to go'.  If OOP is working for you all the time, go for
> it.  Once you get beyond web development, you might start running into
> some hitches though.  I personally do alot of low level C contracts.
> OOP, obviously, would be quite improper to use in such situations.  On
> the other hand, Python, my favored language mentioned previously, is a
> joy to work with, OOP wise.  Especially since everything is an object.
> So when it seems improper to implement something in a class (i.e., I
> don't need special methods, operator overloading, etc), I can just throw
> it into a module (the Pythonic way).  That's one of my main gripes with
> PHP: even in 5, the OOP is mostly an afterthought.
>
> I like to joke about being 'dead set' with what whatever
> language/OS/paradigm/etc I've chosen (as people who do know me can
> attest to), but I just do it as a way of gently mocking those who really
> do believe in such 'one tool works for everything,omgz i'm 1337er than
> you!' ideas.  If you really are completely infatuated with OOP and think
> it's the best answer for everything, I'm sure you'll grow out of it as
> soon as another fad crosses your path.  Or when you get more contracts
> to fulfill, and you slowly realize 'Hey, you know what, OOP ISN'T the
> best answer in this case!!  What have I been doing?!'.
>
> :)
>
> It's all love.
>
> -- 
>
> Joshua Simpson -- dataw0lf.org
> Lead Network Administrator/Engineer Aero-Graphics Inc.
> jsimpson at aero-graphics.com 




More information about the UPHPU mailing list