On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 09:30, -{ Rene Brehmer }- wrote: > Just remember that PHP isn't a true OOP language, so going OOP may not
Please define "true OOP" language and provide a few examples that meet your criteria. Then show how other examples like PHP fail to meet your true OOP criteria. Don't forget, if a language has OOP as a subset, it still has true OOP capabilities. Also it might help to clarify if you mean PHP in general or PHP4 and below.
"True" as in parts of the OOP not being optional, like it is in PHP. You can fudge around the OOP principle in PHP and still get it working.
> necessarily be the best solution always. OOP makes certain types of
> projects easier to code, and some projects would be almost impossible to do
> without OOP (like anything you wanna do where you need to use scope to
> avoid major headaches), but because PHP isn't compiled or a true OOP
PHP is runtime compiled to bytecode. It's just as compiled as any other language. With a good compiler cache it's just as compiled as java.
Compiled to byte-code is only the same as pre-compiled in most other programming languages.
> language, OOP in PHP hampers performance, and that hampering is exponential
> with the complexity of the objects.
You're shitting us all right? Exponential? Really? could you show us some benchmarks on how it's exponential?
Dynamic object creation will always hamper performance relative to the object complexity. It's true for all languages ... it's within seconds though on a non-dedicated server, but depending on what you do, it's not that hard to break 30 secs exec time on PHP that way.
Let's not be sowing seeds of FUD on the PHP general list.
Then it might be good to read instead of interpret.
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
