Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #5459
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional |
| Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:09:05 +0200 |
| Lines | 46 |
| Message-ID | <9uls5hFufuU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> (permalink) |
| References | <alpine.LNX.2.00.1204091428210.3668@mobile_yoda.darkside> <jm3p6n02qe@news1.newsguy.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | news.uni-berlin.de cIKXXR0rwDsOcALoppg7EQZAGtRiwISg5OwxMw56rCH1MP0Mo= |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 |
| In-Reply-To | <jm3p6n02qe@news1.newsguy.com> |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.php:5459 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Am 11.04.2012 13:16, schrieb crankypuss: > On 04/09/2012 01:35 PM, Mr. B-o-B wrote: >> I was curious about peoples thoughts in regards to OOP with PHP. >> >> Are there pro's/con's of writing OOP code versus procedural/functional >> coding? >> >> Strictly speaking for PHP, I do the bulk of my coding as >> procedural/functional. I really haven't found any added benefit to going >> the OOP route. >> >> Am I missing something, or is it just a different approach to the same >> problem? > > OOP is basically a good idea carried to an extreme. > > There is a boatload of value in the concept of inheritance, but that's largely > negated by the mechanics of how inheritance is done in OOP languages. > > Polymorphism is something that's more in the eye of the programmer than in the > language, data constructs can be specific or generalized. > > The idea that making something into an object gives it superior robustness is a joke > if you can step back and look at it. > > I remember writing a Java application and trying to derive an actually useful string > class from the garbage they had declared "final" and that was it for me and Java. I > cannot begin to count the times when I've had to hoke up an object pointer to use > some simple processing method that was part of a C++ class. > > Of course that's all personal opinion. I avoid all OOP constructs in PHP wherever I > can, the more closely I can make it resemble C the easier it will be to convert it > when the time comes. There is one exception to that in my code, one of the zip > functionalities is only supported through some objects... that stuff is encapsulated > in a subroutine. > > Since I value inheritance I've build myself a layered methodology that lets me > override various functions by adding or inserting different layers at runtime. > > Perhaps the nicest thing about programming is that it puts the lie to religious > adherences... as one of my college instructors put it, "if your program works for all > cases it is by definition correct". Second phrase could have been "But there are many more aspects of software quality". /Str.
Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OOP versus Procedural/Functional "Mr. B-o-B" <mr.chew.baka@gmail.com> - 2012-04-09 14:35 -0500
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2012-04-09 21:59 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-09 22:46 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-09 19:29 -0700
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-09 16:55 -0400
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-10 00:34 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Goran <goran@nospam.com> - 2012-04-10 10:14 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-10 12:06 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-10 13:04 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-10 16:07 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-10 16:28 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-10 12:08 -0400
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-10 19:14 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-10 18:19 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de> - 2012-04-10 14:49 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "Álvaro G. Vicario" <alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX@demogracia.com.invalid> - 2012-04-10 17:29 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-10 16:34 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional crankypuss <no@email.thanks> - 2012-04-11 05:16 -0600
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Goran <goran@nospam.com> - 2012-04-11 16:25 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-11 13:06 -0400
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-11 18:18 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-11 16:24 -0400
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-11 22:43 +0100
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional crankypuss <no@email.thanks> - 2012-04-12 05:54 -0600
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-11 19:09 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional crankypuss <no@email.thanks> - 2012-04-12 05:56 -0600
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-12 17:33 +0200
Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-12 13:18 -0400
csiph-web