|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/16/22 11:51
Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:T4SdnWif9KBWjDzZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> The mere fact that you call one object from another automatically means that
> you have messaging. There is no special technique nvolved. It is just the
> same as calling a non-OO function, just that you hae to specify both the
> oject and the method.
>
So now you're agreeing that message passing is intrinsic to OO. Interesting
about face.
>>>
>>>Message passing is not unique to OO, and is not one of the fundamental
>>>principles. It is simply the way that one object communicates with
>>>another.
>>>
>>
>>And without it objects cannot communicate, so you have no program.
>
So Message Passing is one of the properties of OO.
>
> "Messaging" is just the same as "callng a function". There is nothing
> special to it at all.
>
In PHP, that is true. Other languages may implement it differently. The
concept exists; the implementation is left to the language designers.
>
>>
>>I'll bet none of your "web programs" has more than 500 LOC on a single
>>page.
>
>
> None, actually. That's because I make use of a large library of reusable
> modules. Isn't that supposed to be what OO is all about, making maximu use
> of reusable modules?
>
Yep. Try working on a big program - like I've said before. It's not all in one
file, and may have hundreds or even thousands of objects.
PART of what OO is about is making reusable classes. Another part is isolating
the interface from the implementation to make changes easier and limit the
unwarranted effects of changes. Also to make programming easier by being able
to operate on an object without having to worry what that object is. The list
goes on.
Yes, reuse is *one* of the reasons for OO programming.
>>
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong. And unfortunately the attitude of too many
>>"programmers" like you who are "developing" web pages. You can get a lot
>>of things to work. That doesn't mean they are right. And you're
>>"justification" has too many holes to count.
>
>
> Something that works cannot be wrong just as something that does not work
> cannot be right. If you cannot understand that simple concept you have no
> right to class yourself as an "expert" (except in BS)
>
No, Tony, something can work but be wrong. And something that doesn't work may
not be completely right - but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
You are an expert in BS, I will agree.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|