[UPHPU] OOP continued

Tyler Gee geekout at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 14:59:37 MDT 2005

> Another soap box I should hop onto for a second, while I'm going is that
> even in the cases where OOP is good, overuse of OOP is really really bad.
> It usually takes a really big project to need more than a handful of
> classes. Many OOP programmers, especially less experienced ones or ones
> who don't know how/when to use good procedural code, tend to may way too
> many classes. That practice is very detrimental and harmful to the
> developer/team, the project, and the budget.

Regardless of all the other arguments, one of the main arguments from
the procedural camp has been that OOP is bad because amateur OOPers
screw it up.  These are bad arguements.  Don't argue why something
should or should not be used based on the fact that (amateur) people
use it wrong.

For every time someone from the procedural side argues that amateurs
screw up OO (which has been a lot in this discussion) it would be just
as easy to point out amateurs who can write really, really awful
procedural programs.  Hence, statements like:

> Simply put, if they're not good with OOP, it can be easy to eliminate all
> the benefits of OOP by doing it very wrong

should not even be considrered valid arguements nor should they be
voiced.  You can just as easily say:

Simply put, if they're not good with procedural, it can be easy to eliminate all
the benefits of procedural by doing it very wrong.

In my experience it has been way easier to fix crappy objects written
by someone else than it has been to fix crappy procedural programming
written by someone else.

More information about the UPHPU mailing list