[UPHPU] OOP continued

Jeffrey Moss jeff at opendbms.com
Wed Jun 29 13:51:21 MDT 2005


Well Mac it's still the wrong way, even if I'm forced to use it :)

I do some low level code with microcontrollers, I have small robotics 
operation going on in my garage. I would love to use C++ with an AVR 
compiler but with limited space I really have to be conservative.

-Jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mac Newbold" <mac at macnewbold.com>
To: "Jeffrey Moss" <jeff at opendbms.com>
Cc: <uphpu at uphpu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [UPHPU] OOP continued


> 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