[UPHPU] OOP continued

Mac Newbold mac at macnewbold.com
Wed Jun 29 15:17:21 MDT 2005


Today at 2:59pm, Tyler Gee said:

> 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.

Yes and no. Programming (in almost every language I can think of) is a 
_procedural_ process. If you're not good at procedural, you're just plain 
not a very good programmer. In which case your code will probably not be 
very good no matter what methodology you use. All the code inside a method 
is procedural, so you can't be good at OOP without being good (or at least 
mediocre) at procedural first.

> 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.

Yes, that's true. But if you're using OOP because your crappy objects will 
be easier for someone else to fix than your procedural spaghetti code 
would be...

Mac

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



More information about the UPHPU mailing list