|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 06/26/06 16:41
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qe-dnUu6EIRUJALZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:GcmdnahZBuoluALZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:ceOdneMn6a1vTwPZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>OO is about encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. Nothing more,
>>>>>>nothing less. What you choose to call *real* OO I call *bastardised*
>>>>>>OO because some people of low intelligence are trying to make it more
>>>>>>difficult than it really is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also message passing - which you seem to conveniently forget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OO is about encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. Message passing
>>>>is incidental.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And YOU are the one "bastardizing" OO. Your sloppy approach to
>>>>>programming is just what *real* OO is designed to eliminate. And it
>>>>>makes the coding much more maintainable, expandable and modifiable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not the way some people use OO. They deliberately make it more
>>>>complicated than it need be, while I keep it as simple as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And the way you use OO is a bastardization of OO techniques.
>>
>>
>> That's just your opinion. Just because my implementation of OO is
>> different from yours does not make it wrong, merely different. If you
>> believe that YOUR way is the ONLY way then you are just being arrogant.
>>
>
> And the opinion of other experts in the field - such as the ones I
> mentioned before.
Even experts disagree on what is or is not the *right* way in OO, so all I
am doing is agreeing with those experts who disagree with your your
favourite experts.
> Your implementation violates some of the basic reasons for even having OO!
> And no, I don't believe MY way is the only way. But I believe the experts
> in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
I disagree. I am using the three basic principles of OO, as documented, to
achieve a higher level of reuse than I could by using non-OO techniques.
> I suspect you've had no real-world OO experience. Large, complex projects
> OO is designed to make easier. All of your experience is probably simple
> PHP pages you do yourself with no collaboration.
At least I have not been taught by people who don't know what they're
talking about.
> Your attitude would never survive in a the large scale projects I've been
> involved in (100+ programmers, 2 years+ time). But then it wouldn't
> survive the smaller projects I've been involved in, either - (i.e. three
> programmers for two months).
The size of project is irrelevant. The OOP principles are the same
regardless of the size of project. The only project I have ever been
associated with which failed disastrously was one where the system
architects got carried away with their fancy ideas of how OOP should be
implemented and produced something that was so inefficient and unproductive
that the client cancelled the entire project as soon as the first live
programs were produced. It was THEIR attitude that was wrong, not mine.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|