"CNerd2025" <andrew.elgert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1125019109.322757.232300@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I happen to know OOP quite well, thank you. My first language was Java,
| a language that is strictly OOP. I generally disapprove of OOP
| languages because they attempt to model specifics of the real world,
| and are hence very limited.
not well enough. oop doesn't "model" anything and hardly a limiting factor
to any functionality in which you plan to endeavor. it is inherently
abstract and without that, you are *required* to be specific and dedicated
in your approach...your application is doomed once it needs to scale.
| I want a framework, not strictly a
| management system, that can handle web applications easily. I don't see
| an OOP solution as the best.
perhaps you need to look at this through the eyes of an architect and not
just as a developer.
| I appreciate the ideals of OOP, they are
| indeed great. Encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance are all good
| ideals for software design, but to successfully implement them as they
| were intended, the computer would be required to actually think.
rubbish! it simply requires *you* to think about all the functionality you
need to provide (in detail) with all factors in mind throughout the
development life-cycle...efficiency, scalability, maintainabilty,
communication, hardware, etc.
the idea of loose-coupling all components of a software system and
building
it up from smaller, reusable pieces is far from the design flaws of bulk
coding. and, encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance are all *easily*
implemented, make for solid, manageable systems...and *no* feature of oop
requires a computer to think...beyond "is there a 0 here or a 1".
| And as for an update, I am no
| longer planing to store functions in the database. That was an
| inherently bad idea.
i'm eye-to-eye with you on that one.
| The whole reason for avoiding OOP however was directly tied to RDBMSs.
how you choose to persist the input gathered by a piece of software should
have *very* little to do with the architecture of said software. the two
only speak to eachother when an addition, update, delete, or view is
needed
of data in an rdbm. you are throwing away the *best* software design has
to
offer because you feel the two are married! that doesn't make sense.
| I didn't want a web system that would require tweaking the tables,
| adding new ones, or subtracting old ones for maintainance.
so don't design it that way! what does oop have to do with how you create
your data structures?
| I dont want the need
| for new cl***** every time I want to add a new feature.
that's great! and how do you expect to get you software to provide said
new
feature if you don't code it? whether the functionality is to be put in a
class or a bulk-type module, it still has to be added. at least with oop,
if
you've designed it well, you should be able to make use of existing
cl*****
to build-up the new features to be added...i.e. you won't have to create
completely new routines for persisting data, you have a base class which
can
be extended and made more specific to the new feature's requirements,
etc...else, you're re-inventing the wheel each time you want to add
something new.
| I don't want to
| ever touch the source code directly.
interesting. unrealistic no matter what techniques you use, but
interesting
just the same. now that would truly require the computer to do the
thinking!
| For me, software should be flexible, extensible,
| user-configurable, user-friendly, and efficient.
enter, oop.
| Storing everyting in a
| database is not efficient, so I cut it.
wise decision.
| Do you also reallize that the
| reason I'm posting on this usenet is so that people can perhaps lend a
| hand?
i think everyone does! the problem you fail to realize is that experienced
programmers (the ones you *want* to get involved), read your other posts
denouncing oop and suggesting all code is stored in a db and they think
you're just a loose-canon having little-to-no experience. the ones who
think
the problem that you are try address with your software could make them
some
money...and are now off on their merry way developing it...*with* a sound
architecture, i might add. not to mention, we hate seeing you advertise
this
project in every software and database ng we visit!
| I was a bit overzealous with the posts earlier. I have since toned it
| down, and have found someone whom I am working with. Thank you!
well good...hopefully that means we won't see more of these adds...and,
you're welcome.
|
