Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #5484
| From | crankypuss <no@email.thanks> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional |
| Date | 2012-04-12 05:56 -0600 |
| Organization | NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 |
| Message-ID | <jm6fu731ldo@news4.newsguy.com> (permalink) |
| References | <alpine.LNX.2.00.1204091428210.3668@mobile_yoda.darkside> <jm3p6n02qe@news1.newsguy.com> <9uls5hFufuU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> |
On 04/11/2012 11:09 AM, M. Strobel wrote: > 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. Sure, and if he'd really wanted his students prepared for the real world he'd have said something about quality being meaningless in the face of profit, so what?
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