On 10/9/07, Tony Marston <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ""Nathan Nobbe"" <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > news:7dd2dc0b0710091106n7f6f6c20i4997cd1fc606ffb4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > On 10/9/07, Tony Marston <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> ""Nathan Nobbe"" <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > >> news:7dd2dc0b0710091015g7c29be93h671aa51bb125198e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > On 10/9/07, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Why would I use an interface? :) > >> > > >> > because inheritance is not always optimal. > >> > >> I have never found a prolem when using an interface was the only > >> solution, > >> or even ANY kind of solution. The fact that your designs need it speaks > >> volumes of the problems with your designs. > > > > im not the one whose been defending my designs in this conversation; > you > > are. > > But you are the one who keeps saying that your approach, where all member > variables are hidden, is far superior. I'm just saying that I do share > that > opinion. fine; lets agree to disagree on that point. > there are plenty of situations where the interface is the more elegant > > approach, thats why its here; and thats why it was added in php5. > > > >> There's your problem, then. You are wasting your time trying to > implement > >> fancy design patterns just because design patterns are supposed to be > >> "cool". > > > > i dont recall reading any suggestions to use design patterns because > they > > are cool. > > But you are the one who pointed out that interfaces are used in design > patterns, therefore they *must* be OK. I am saying that I have never seen > any advantages from using interfaces, and I don't waste my time with > design > patterns. no; i stated interfaces offer an alternate mechanism to realize polymorphism. i brought design patterns in when i suggested a book that would illustrate by example how interfaces can be used and when they are a better choice than inheritance. > infact the advice ive read is to only use them when they make sense. > > My point is that interfaces do not make anysense to me at all. I can > access > all my class methods without them, so what benefit do they give? if you just read the one chapter im sure they would make sense; they offer polymorphism w/o the cost of the parent behavior. > Loader class, Controller Base class, Front Controller - I have none > >> of that crap in my code, so I don't encounter the problems you have. > When > >> I > >> see code like "$this->load->library('email') " I just thank my lucky > >> stars > >> that I don't have to maintain it. I think some serious refactoring is > >> long > >> overdue. > > > > id have to say code igniter is quite a bit more popular than radicore. > > maybe youre the one who has some refactoring to do. > > > > Perhaps you are trying to implement something from another language and > >> expecting PHP to be just like that other language, which is always a > >> stupid > >> mistake. PHP is different, therefore the solution will be different. I > >> suggest you learn how PHP works and design accordingly, and stop trying > >> to > >> force it into emulating another language. > > > > > > well php has certainly gotten its influence from a number of other > > languages. > > where do you think the additional features in php5 got their inspiration > > from? > > Some of those features were implemented just because some a*sholes who are > more familiar with other languages keep saying "I can do so-and-so in > language X, and I want to do exactly the same thing in PHP". Language X > has > interfaces, so PHP *must* have interfaces, Why? youre probly right; if i were to guess id say the interface keyword was borrowed from java; im sure .net ripped it off of java too. What purpose do they serve? they offer an additional polymorphic mechanism. What benefits do they bring? if you havent noticed a class can implement any number of interfaces; it can only extend a single class. this means that the same class could potentially be used polymorphically in several scenarios. part of the problem w/ inheritance is you can only put methods in the superclass that all the children will absolutely need. otherwise that behavior will be available in the child classes and that can be bad news. the bottom line is; if behavior is changing across all subclasses; it is not beneficial to have it in the superclass; but if a method will say, still be in many of the children it is desirable to still indicate they are similar; in comes the interface to save the day. > btw; > > heres the definition of implement from dictionary.com > > > > im·ple·ment > > < > https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fimplementation > > > > /n. '?mpl?m?nt; v. '?mpl??m?nt, -m?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled > > Pronunciation[n. *im*-pl*uh*-m*uh*nt; v. *im*-pl*uh*-ment, -m*uh*nt] > > Pronunciation > > Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun 1.any article used in some activity, > > esp. > > an instrument, tool, or utensil: agricultural implements. > > notice the use of article; ie data; ie; you are wrong about member > > variables > > not being part of a classes implementation. > > if a variable local to a function can be considered part of its > > implementation; then a variable local to a class can be > > considered part of its implementation; its that simple. > > Implementation is still an activity or a procedure. A lawnmower is a tool > which implements lawnmowing, and it acts upon a lawn. However, the lawn is > not part of the implementation, it is the subject of the implementation. > An > object may contain both variables and operations, but the data is not part > of those operations, it is the subject of those operations. does a lawn mower not have blades; and gas and a control panel; does it not have wheels? my object modeling of a lawn mower would certainly have these things; and most likely i would mark components of the engine as private. and what does a lawn mower cut anyway; grass; i thought that was it. so if there was no grass could there still be an algorithm to cut it? i say grass is part of the grass-cutting algorithm. -nathan
