Re: Dynamic form generation

From	"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
References	(21 earlier) <jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me> <Q9Qkr.304958$yJ4.71463@fx07.am4> <jn15dt$gjl$1@dont-email.me> <dBdlr.18686$_Q.3940@fx01.am4> <jn3vn9$vme$1@dont-email.me>
Subject	Re: Dynamic form generation
Message-ID	<tJemr.75$Qu1.36@fx14.am4> (permalink)
Date	2012-04-26 17:29 +0100

Show all headers | View raw

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:jn3vn9$vme$1@dont-email.me...
<snip>
>> You call my code bloated because I have included the option to change the
>> password validation rules by changing values on a screen whereas you have 
>> to
>> change the code. My method may have taken slightly longer to code, but it
>> also means that changes are easier to implement.
>
> I call your code bloated because it contains extra code for an unnecessary 
> function no one else does because it's a "feature" no one needs and no one 
> asks for.

Then how do you account for the fact that the only reason I added that 
featue into my framework is because someone actually asked for it?

> A simple one line of code will do what your complicated database access, 
> parsing and checking will do.  That one line of code is not only more 
> efficient but can handle many more possibilities.

Yes, but my method will allow the customer to change the rules on a screen 
instead of asking me to change some code.

>> You call my code overly complicated because it has a pre-written 
>> validation
>> class whereas to have to write code to validate each piece of user input.
>
> Yes, your code is unnecessarily complicated when it has to have an entire 
> class to do what a single line of code will do more clearly and more 
> efficiently.

You are missing the point AGAIN! Using your method you actually have to 
write a line of code for each field that needs to be validated. With my 
method you don't have to write any code at all as the framework 
automatically calls the validation object to validate eveything in the input 
array at a single stroke.

>> You say that my code does not follow "generally recognized rules" for no
>> other reason that the rules which it *DOES* follow are not the same as
>> yours. There is no single set of rules that is universally folowed by all
>> programmers, so I follow the rules which I consider to be the most
>> appropriate.
>
> Once again you need to actually UNDERSTAND OO programming.  These are not 
> "my rules" - they are long established "rules" accepted by 
> world-recognized experts on the subject.

Different groups of developers have different sets of arbitrary "rules" or 
"standards" which exist on top of basic programming principles. There is no 
single set of rules which is universally adopted by *ALL* programmers. The 
"rules" that I follow are not necessarily the same rules that you follow, 
but so what? Who says that *YOUR* rules are he only rules that are allowed 
to exist?

As for my understanding of the principles of OO programming, I simply stick 
to the basic principles of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism as 
documented in http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql/what-is-oop.html Anything 
other than the basic principles is an optional extra, is totally 
superfluous, and can safely be ignored.

<snip>
>>> I'm not saying every member of this group is stupid or incompetent. 
>>> There
>>> are a number of people here who are quite intelligent and competent, 
>>> whose
>>> opinions I regard highly.
>>
>> Only those who dare not disagree with anything you say. I am the
>> founder-member of the "I disagree with everything that Jerry Stuckle 
>> says"
>> society, so I don't think I'm in that group. Ask me if I care!
>>
>
> Nope, there are people I disagree with here but still respect.  I, too, 
> have learned from those people.

I can't learn from you for the simple reason that you can't teach me 
anything of value.

<snip>
>>> Yes, you've already said you don't understand one of the basic 
>>> principles
>>> of OO programming - encapsulation.
>>
>> Encapsulation has nothing to do with information hiding, only 
>> implementation
>> hiding. Encapsulation does not require the use of getters and setters.
>
> You obviously do not understand the concept of encapsulation.  Once again 
> I suggest you read a good book on it.  Booch would be an excellent start. 
> However, I suspect it will be way over your head.  It's meant for 
> programmers.

The definition of encapsulation is "The act of placing data and the 
operations that perform on that data in the same class. The class then 
becomes the 'capsule' or container for the data and operations." There is 
nowhere in that definition which says anything about hiding the data by 
setting access to "private", or even setting operations to "private".

<snip>
> Encapsulation has nothing to do with "data hiding".  I never said it did. 
> But it DOES have EVERYTHING to do with controlling ACCESS to the data. 
> Once again, I suggest you read a book by a recognized expert in the field, 
> not something on the internet written by someone as incompetent as you.

Access is controlled by changing a property from "public" to "private". If 
it is "public" then it can be accessed directly without using a getter or a 
setter. If it is "private" then it cannot be accessed directly and therefore 
can *ONLY* be accessed using a getter or a setter.

Therefore the use of getters and setters is directly related to the hiding 
of data by changing its access from "public" to "private".

Encapsulation does *NOT* mean information hiding, therefore I do *NOT* have 
to make all my properties private, therefore I do *NOT* have to use geters 
and setters.

<snip>
>>> Your framework generates less code because it's only a half-assed
>>> implementation of even basic OO principles (which you have repeatedly
>>> shown you don't understand).
>>
>> My framework is an implementation of MY understanding of the principles 
>> of
>> OOP just as your framework is an implementation of YOUR understanding of 
>> the
>> same principles. When you consider the fact that there is no universal
>> agreement on what "Object Oriented Programming" actually means then it is
>> not surprising that two individuals have a totally different 
>> understanding.
>> Yet I am not the one who is saying that *MY* understanding is the only
>> opinion worth having.
>
> And your understanding is pure crap.  There IS a universal agreement on 
> the basic principles of OOP by recognized experts in the field.

There is *NO* universal agreement on what OO is and is not. Take a look at 
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs if you don't believe me.

>> Take a look at these articles to see if you can identify a definition of 
>> OOP
>> with is universally accepted:
>>
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DefinitionsForOo
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs
>> http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776
>> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
>> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/whypr.htm
>> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/core1.htm
>> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/beyondhw.htm
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentsAgainstOop
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsDead
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsaHoax
>> http://dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveFailedNarrative.html
>> http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4216597/Nuts-to-OOP
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientedForDummies
>
> Once again I urge you to read a book by a recognized expert in the field 
> and not something on the internet written by a person who has no 
> understanding of what OOP really is.

Oh I see! Only those books or articles which support your twisted view are 
the ones worth considering! How arrogant you are!

There are thousands of books and articles which have been written about 
programming in general and OO programming in particular, yet there is no 
single set of "rules" which have been accepted by everyone. It is impossible 
to follow every set of rules that has ever been published, so I choose to 
follow only those rules which seem sensible to me.

> Which of those are your articles, BTW?

None. They were written by others who are also not impressed with some of 
the rubbish ideas that have somehow been turned into "rules".

<snip>
>>>> You so are saying that I'm incompetent simply because I refuse to 
>>>> follow
>>>> YOUR rules? Do you know how arrogant that makes you?
>>>
>>> No, widely recognized rules by experts.
>>
>> Who says that the rules that you choose to follow were written by 
>> experts?
>> What about different sets of rules written by different sets of experts?
>
> There are world-wide recognized experts like Booch in the field who agree 
> on the same rules.  Show me any world-wide experts who support your 
> "rules".  And someone with a blog on the internet doesn't count.

There are plenty of "experts" out there who agree on different sets of 
rules. There is no single set of rules which is universally followed by 
*all* experts.

I just happen to follow a different set of rules which are favoured by a 
different set of experts.

Of course you are so arrogant you will no doubt say that the experts that I 
follow are wrong while the experts that you follow are the only experts 
worth listening to.

-- 
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

Thread

Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 20:48 -0700
  Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-12 00:03 -0400
  Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-12 05:46 +0100
  Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-11 21:52 -0700
    Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 12:42 +0000
      Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 20:43 -0700
        Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-12 21:55 -0700
          Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:19 +0000
        Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-13 09:59 +0100
          Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:22 +0000
            Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-17 14:49 +0200
              Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 11:36 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:33 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 07:59 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:56 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:29 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 09:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 07:47 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 12:22 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 10:19 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 11:45 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:21 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 20:56 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 09:23 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-24 16:20 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 10:04 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:29 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:45 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 19:21 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 13:50 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 11:10 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 17:11 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 18:54 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:55 +0100
                [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-25 13:22 +0200
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:46 +0100
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:51 +0100
                Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-27 10:26 +0200
                [OT] Yes-or-no questions (was: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 07:56 +0200
          Re: Dynamic form generation "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-04-14 08:53 -0500
            Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:33 +0100
              Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-15 08:51 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 09:31 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 08:33 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 15:11 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 11:18 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-17 09:18 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 06:07 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:10 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 08:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:41 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 10:10 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 08:09 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 10:35 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 06:21 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 10:27 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:43 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:23 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:24 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 17:29 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:37 +0100
                What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:10 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2012-04-23 14:22 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-23 15:27 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:33 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:26 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:25 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2012-04-23 19:45 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:35 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 19:45 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-28 08:48 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-28 09:23 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-28 08:37 -0400
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 14:46 +0200
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:31 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-24 12:32 +1000
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-24 19:32 +0100
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 19:02 +1000
                Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:20 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 23:59 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:05 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:35 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-23 15:41 +0200
                Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:39 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:47 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 08:52 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:34 -0400
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 09:52 +0100
                Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 14:16 +0100
          Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 15:23 -0700
  Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 10:52 +0100
  Re: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-13 11:39 +0200
  Re: Dynamic form generation Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-04-13 15:27 +0200

csiph-web