[UPHPU] OOP continued

Mac Newbold mac at macnewbold.com
Wed Jun 29 13:48:06 MDT 2005


Today at 1:35pm, Jeffrey Moss said:

> 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.

Right there you have even contradicted your own statement about "*always* 
using OO". Please be careful when you make such sweeping, over-generalized 
statements... some people will believe you and take you at your word.

Mac

> ----- 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:
>>> 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 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?!'.

--
Mac Newbold		MNE - Mac Newbold Enterprises, LLC
mac at macnewbold.com	http://www.macnewbold.com/



More information about the UPHPU mailing list