[UPHPU] OOP continued
digitalsuicide at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 14:16:45 MDT 2005
Jeffrey Moss wrote:
> Sorry, I have to say it. Y'all just don't understand OOP (I know you
> hate that). If you understood it better you'd agree with me. Everything
> should be an object. Files should be objects. Drivers should be objects.
> Applications should be objects. If everything was an object the world
> would be a much more interoperable place. :)
*sigh* Didn't want to have to do this.
Ok, the thing with OOP is that when you abstract, you don't necessarily
SIMPLIFY. See, that's often something people confuse. One of the
inherent problems with OOP is the fact then inheritance and
encapsulation, more often than not, contradict themselves. When you
encapsulate you 'hide' everything; yet, a programmer is supposed to
inherit these things that are hidden. A guy starting out is supposed to
take these inherited attributes that are encapsulated (e.g., hidden) and
reuse them. Wha... ? This is supposed to FIX bugs? Yeah, right. It
makes sense in some applications, in others you'd be bonkers to do such
Working on a large team with OOP has it's benefits, certainly. However,
for many projects that, for lack of a better word, 'amateur' programmers
work on, OOP is way too overly complex and strained for such
situations. I'm sorry, but if you need such an elaborate design
structure to accomplish something that's relatively straightforward in a
procedural language, you might just be a little weak minded.
I'm not saying OOP is terrible. However, there are times that OOP just
_doesn't_ _make_ _sense_. There are other, better (mayhap less popular)
'fads' that people are taking to nowadays that you can fixtate on for
And, in regard to Tyler's comment about Mac's 'absolute', you're right.
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes, correct?
Joshua Simpson -- dataw0lf.org
Lead Network Administrator/Engineer Aero-Graphics Inc.
jsimpson at aero-graphics.com
More information about the UPHPU