On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 11:08 -0500, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > Surely he didn't explain OOP to you... he's anti OOP :) > > > > > > ya; im waiting to see one of these 'simple' sites thats written strictly > w/ > > functions and procedural code that does more than support a username > > and password :) > > Careful what you say... it is very possible. Just think of all the > complex code out there written in C. It's just a question of how you > leverage your libraries. I personally prefer to have an object than to > have to always pass a structure to a procedural function. i know what you mean; obviously, php is written in c w/ functions and its over 600k lines! as an aside, something that irritates me is the criticism of oop is notorious for long identifiers. when if you look at the source for any substantial c application youll find the same sort of long identifiers; case in point, php zend_objects_get_address zend_objects_store_put zend_parse_method_parameters zend_unmangle_property_name and anyway, what i was really getting at is richards allusion that all 'web pages' are very simple and therefore dont mandate the use of classes. where my perspective is, once you get beyond something very trivial, 'web pages' may require a ton of code to drive, no matter how the code is written. as the amount of code in a project increases, so does the complexity, depending on the style of the code the complexity can increase at variable rates. ive seen and dealt w/ a number of applications that were procedural and or functions w/o classes that were quite complex. i understand designing for simplicity is key, however, things can only be kept so simple beyond reason. the more something does, the more complex it is; period. -nathan
