| Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional [message #177663 is a reply to message #177655] |
Thu, 12 April 2012 15:33   |
M. Strobel
Messages: 386
Registered: December 2011
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Am 12.04.2012 13:56, schrieb crankypuss:
> 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?
Ignoring good advice, "state of the art", "best practices" isn't something to teach.
It happens.
And quality is not completely meaningless if the customer can have a look at the code
and see what he is paying for.
/Str.
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]