Object Oriented PHP

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:oMSdndxexP BAjzzZnZ2dnUVZ_ tidnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:IrOdnQkOaa c8Gz3ZnZ2dnUVZ_ omdnZ2d@comcast .com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Henk Verhoeven wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> > Actually, things like private declarations are very important.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO private declarations are too rigid and therfore decrease
>>>>reusability . I agree that it can be very usefull to know the intentions
>>>>of the developer of some code one is evaluating to call or some member
>>>>variable one is avaluating to access. But every now and then there are
>>>>good reasons to do it anyway, even if it was intended to be private. For
>>>>example lazy initialization and default reasoning both are often
>>>>implement ed using direct access to member variables. Another example is
>>>>using a visitor to implement persistency.
>>>>
>>>>Now maybe you would say that i should change these member variables to
>>>>protected or public. There are two problems with this:
>>>>1. It may not be my own code. Then if i get an upgrade of this code,
>>>>these member variables will once again be private, unless i re-apply my
>>>>changes. This is uneccessary overhead.
>>>>2. By changing the private declaration the intension of the other
>>>>developer gets lost. Now i could put a comment in that it was intended
>>>>to be private, but in that case: why not put the @private marker in the
>>>>comment in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>The fundamental point is: With these private and protected declarations
>>>>you get stuck with the uneccessarily limitations introduced by the
>>>>author. Object-orientation can lead to more reusability then
>>>>conventiona l parameterized code exactly because the code can be
>>>>overridde n and extended in ways the original author did not provide for.
>>>>private and protected declarations are a step backwards that is only
>>>>reasonabl e if you assume that future developers that will maintain or
>>>>reuse your code will ignore your intentions becuase they are fools. If
>>>>this is the case, i think you should tell your boss that you are
>>>>limiting the reusability of your code because you are aniticipating him
>>>>to hire fools and let them work on/with your code ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Greetings ,
>>>>
>>>>Henk Verhoeven,
>>>>www.phpPeanuts.org.
>>>
>>>Henk,
>>>
>>>Private declarations are key to OO programming.[/color]
>>
>>
>> No they are not. Encapsulation is not the same as data hiding. Please
>> refer to:
>> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...psulation.html
>> http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
>>[/color]
>
> Give it up, Tony. You obviously can't even understand the information you
> reference.[/color]

No, I won't give it up. Both those articles clearly state that private
declarations (data hiding) is *not* one of the key concepts of OO.
Encapsulation is about *implementation * hiding, not information* hiding.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:T4SdnWif9K BWjDzZnZ2dnUVZ_ oGdnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:CbWdnQMrCZ UgHj3ZnZ2dnUVZ_ rGdnZ2d@comcast .com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>>>And the opinion of other experts in the field - such as the ones I
>>>>>mentione d before.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even experts disagree on what is or is not the *right* way in OO, so all
>>>>I am doing is agreeing with those experts who disagree with your your
>>>>favourite experts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But NONE of the experts disagree on message passing. Check out what
>>>Booch, Rumbaugh or Iverson have to say, for instance. Especially Booch -
>>>the founder of OO techniques.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Message passing exists in non-OO languages, so it not something whch is
>> unique to OO.
>>[/color]
>
> I never said it was unique to OO. Variables exist in non-OO languages
> also. The difference is that message passing is an inherent requirement in
> OO languages, where it isn't in non-OO languages.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> You can, for instance, write a complete program in C without a function
> call other than main(). Or in VB with no subroutines, etc.
>
> It's not possible in an OO program.
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>Your implementation violates some of the basic reasons for even having
>>>>>OO! And no, I don't believe MY way is the only way. But I believe the
>>>>>experts in the field know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. I am using the three basic principles of OO, as documented,
>>>>to achieve a higher level of reuse than I could by using non-OO
>>>>technique s.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you're missing the fourth principle.[/color]
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>[/color]
>
> And without it objects cannot communicate, so you have no program.[/color]

"Messaging" is just the same as "callng a function". There is nothing
special to it at all.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>I suspect you've had no real-world OO experience. Large, complex
>>>>>projects OO is designed to make easier. All of your experience is
>>>>>probably simple PHP pages you do yourself with no collaboration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At least I have not been taught by people who don't know what they're
>>>>talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So obviously you have no real world experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Your attitude would never survive in a the large scale projects I've
>>>>>been involved in (100+ programmers, 2 years+ time). But then it
>>>>>wouldn't survive the smaller projects I've been involved in, either -
>>>>>(i.e. three programmers for two months).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The size of project is irrelevant. The OOP principles are the same
>>>>regardles s of the size of project. The only project I have ever been
>>>>associate d with which failed disastrously was one where the system
>>>>architect s got carried away with their fancy ideas of how OOP should be
>>>>implement ed and produced something that was so inefficient and
>>>>unproductiv e that the client cancelled the entire project as soon as the
>>>>first live programs were produced. It was THEIR attitude that was wrong,
>>>>not mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you had worked on something other than a 50 LOC web site you'd know
>>>that is complete horse shit.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Excuse me? I have produced administrative web applications with over 500
>> components, so that puts me way beyond the 50 LOC web site.
>>[/color]
>
> "Administra tive web applications"? ROFLMAO! Try a real program. > 1M
> LOC, 100+ programmers working for over 2 years. Or even something with
> 10K LOC - all in one file, not a bunch of separate web pages.
>
> I'll bet none of your "web programs" has more than 500 LOC on a single
> page.[/color]

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?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Just because some system architects didn't know what they were doing
>>>doesn't mean OO is bad. It means only that they had no idea what they
>>>were doing.[/color]
>>
>>
>> But they were folowing allthe rules, so how could they be wrong?
>>[/color]
>
> You don't read well, do you. Just because some system architects didn't
> know what they were doing doesn't mean that OO is bad. It means only that
> they had no idea what they were doing.
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>For the record - since starting with OO in 1988, I've been involved in a
>>>number of projects - small to large. And every project where people knew
>>>what they were doing was successful.[/color]
>>
>>
>> If your techniques produce something that works, then you are obviously
>> doing something right. It is only when the software does not work that
>> you can say that the techniques were wrong. My techniques work, therefore
>> you have no cause to say that the are wrong.
>>[/color]
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. And unfortunately the attitude of too many
> "programmer s" 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
> "justificat ion" has too many holes to count.[/color]

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)

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:T4SdnWif9K BWjDzZnZ2dnUVZ_ 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.
>[/color]

So now you're agreeing that message passing is intrinsic to OO. Interesting
about face.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>>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.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>And without it objects cannot communicate, so you have no program.[/color]
>[/color]

So Message Passing is one of the properties of OO.
[color=blue]
>
> "Messaging" is just the same as "callng a function". There is nothing
> special to it at all.
>[/color]

In PHP, that is true. Other languages may implement it differently. The
concept exists; the implementation is left to the language designers.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>>I'll bet none of your "web programs" has more than 500 LOC on a single
>>page.[/color]
>
>
> 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?
>[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong. And unfortunately the attitude of too many
>>"programmer s" 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
>>"justificatio n" has too many holes to count.[/color]
>
>
> 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)
>[/color]

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@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:oMSdndxexP BAjzzZnZ2dnUVZ_ tidnZ2d@comcast .com...
>[color=green]
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:IrOdnQk Oaac8Gz3ZnZ2dnU VZ_omdnZ2d@comc ast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Henk Verhoeven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actuall y, things like private declarations are very important.
>>>>>
>>>>>IMHO private declarations are too rigid and therfore decrease
>>>>>reusabilit y. I agree that it can be very usefull to know the intentions
>>>>>of the developer of some code one is evaluating to call or some member
>>>>>variable one is avaluating to access. But every now and then there are
>>>>>good reasons to do it anyway, even if it was intended to be private. For
>>>>>example lazy initialization and default reasoning both are often
>>>>>implemente d using direct access to member variables. Another example is
>>>>>using a visitor to implement persistency.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now maybe you would say that i should change these member variables to
>>>>>protecte d or public. There are two problems with this:
>>>>>1. It may not be my own code. Then if i get an upgrade of this code,
>>>>>these member variables will once again be private, unless i re-apply my
>>>>>changes. This is uneccessary overhead.
>>>>>2. By changing the private declaration the intension of the other
>>>>>develope r gets lost. Now i could put a comment in that it was intended
>>>>>to be private, but in that case: why not put the @private marker in the
>>>>>comment in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>>>The fundamental point is: With these private and protected declarations
>>>>>you get stuck with the uneccessarily limitations introduced by the
>>>>>author. Object-orientation can lead to more reusability then
>>>>>convention al parameterized code exactly because the code can be
>>>>>overridd en and extended in ways the original author did not provide for.
>>>>>private and protected declarations are a step backwards that is only
>>>>>reasonab le if you assume that future developers that will maintain or
>>>>>reuse your code will ignore your intentions becuase they are fools. If
>>>>>this is the case, i think you should tell your boss that you are
>>>>>limiting the reusability of your code because you are aniticipating him
>>>>>to hire fools and let them work on/with your code ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Greeting s,
>>>>>
>>>>>Henk Verhoeven,
>>>>>www.phpPeanuts.org.
>>>>
>>>>Henk,
>>>>
>>>>Private declarations are key to OO programming.
>>>
>>>
>>>No they are not. Encapsulation is not the same as data hiding. Please
>>>refer to:
>>>http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...psulation.html
>>>http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Give it up, Tony. You obviously can't even understand the information you
>>reference.[/color]
>
>
> No, I won't give it up. Both those articles clearly state that private
> declarations (data hiding) is *not* one of the key concepts of OO.
> Encapsulation is about *implementation * hiding, not information* hiding.
>[/color]

Try reading from a real expert - like Booch, Rumbaugh or Iverson. Just because
someone posts something on the internet doesn't make them an expert. You've
proven that several times here.


--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:7sudnawIL7 dKkjzZnZ2dnUVZ_ v-dnZ2d@comcast.c om...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Teadndafls 4zHz3ZnZ2dnUVZ_ v-dnZ2d@comcast.c om...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:7fCdnb mMO7sjJQLZnZ2dn UVZ_tidnZ2d@com cast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:tMyd nfBVrd_suQLZnZ2 dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@c omcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Jerr y Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:ce OdneMn6a1vTwPZn Z2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d @comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OO is about encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. Message
>>>>>>>>passi ng is incidental.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And YOU are the one "bastardizi ng" OO. Your sloppy approach to
>>>>>>>>>progra mming is just what *real* OO is designed to eliminate. And
>>>>>>>>>it makes the coding much more maintainable, expandable and
>>>>>>>>>modifi able.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not the way some people use OO. They deliberately make it more
>>>>>>>>complic ated than it need be, while I keep it as simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And that is where you are 100% wrong. Message passing is an integral
>>>>>>>part of both object-based and object-oriented languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One bit of wisdom, Tony. Tis better to remain silent and have
>>>>>>>everyo ne thing you might be a fool than to open your mouth and remove
>>>>>>>all doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the OO world you have removed all doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The three principles of OO are encapsulation, polymorphism and
>>>>>>inheritan ce. Message passing does not appear in that list, so it is a
>>>>>>minor detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's where you are totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me? After performing a google search on OOP all I see quoted time
>>>>after time are the three basic principles - encapsulation, inheritance
>>>>and polymorphism - so how could I possibly be wrong?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe if you check some sites which know what they're talking about -
>>>instead of your own. Try some like:
>>>
>>>http://www.fincher.org/tips/General/...edDesign.shtml
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-...ed_programming
>>>http://www.awprofessional.com/bookst...824191&redir=1
>>>http://www.objectfaq.com/oofaq2/body/basics.htm
>>>
>>>Just for starters.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I got my information from these sites:
>>
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOriented
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PolymorphismE...ionInheritance
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-...ed_programming
>> http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/luis20000420.php3
>>
>> All I see about message passing is that it is how one object communicates
>> with another. This is a trivial detail compared with encapsulation,
>> inheritance and polymorphism. Even non-OO languages can pass messages, so
>> what's so important about it?
>>[/color]
>
> Gee, and wiki's are the Last Word? ROFLMAO! Try some real experts - like
> Booch, Iverson and Rumbaugh, for instance. These guys have been
> recognized as experts throughout the world for upwards of 20 years -
> instead of some guy who posted in a wiki.[/color]

There is nothing special with messaging. It's a piece of code calling a
function, which has existed in many non-OO languages for decades. There is
no difference between calling a function and calling a method (function)
within an object.

OOP is about encapsulation, inheritance and polymorhism, and the ability to
create objects from classes. It is taken for granted that there is a method
of communicating with each of the objets ou create. There is nothing special
about "messaging" at all.
[color=blue]
> However, wikipedia (which I also mentioned because it might meet your
> level of intelligence), says under "Fundamenta l Concepts":
>
> "Method (also known as message) — how code can use an object of some
> class. A method is a form of subroutine operating on a single object[/color]

Other languages have had the ability to create subroutines, and to be able
to call those subrutines, for ages. There is nothing special about that
which only eists in OOP.
[color=blue]
>. Methods may be divided into queries returning the current state and
>commands changing it:[/color]

Other langages have had the ability for a module to have several entry
points, and for each entry point to do something different, for decades.
There is nothing special about his technique which is unique to OOP,
therefore saying that it is a fundamental priciple of OOP is entirely
misleading. AFAIAC it is a fundamental requirement of EVERY language, OO and
non-OO, to be able to call one module from another. This is a standard
requirement, there is nothing special aout it at all.
[color=blue]
> a Dog could have a query Age to say how old it is, and command chase
> (Rabbit target) to start it chasing a rabbit. A method may also do both,
> but some authorities (e.g. Bertrand Meyer) recommend they be kept
> separate. Sometimes access to the data of an object is restricted to the
> methods of its class."
>
> It is important because that's how you communicate with objects. It's the
> interface, which is public, instead of the implementation, which is
> private.[/color]

Calling a function and passing parameters to it, and getting parameters
back, is not something which is unique to OO. It is a standard feature of
EVERY language, therefore to say that it is a fundamental principle of OOP
carries no more weight than saying the ability to declare variables is a
fundamental principle of OOP. It is oneof those obvious things which should
not have to be stated.
[color=blue]
> But if you understood OO as well as you claim you would understand that.[/color]

The difference between an OO and a non-OO language is that one has
encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism while the other does not. Both
have messaging (the ability to call functions) so that is a complete red
herring.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> There is nothing special with messaging. It's a piece of code calling a
> function, which has existed in many non-OO languages for decades. There is
> no difference between calling a function and calling a method (function)
> within an object.
>
> OOP is about encapsulation, inheritance and polymorhism, and the ability to
> create objects from classes. It is taken for granted that there is a method
> of communicating with each of the objets ou create. There is nothing special
> about "messaging" at all.
>[/color]

Well, the fact is, messages (function calls) are OPTIONAL in other languages.
You can build a C program without any functions (other than main()). You can
build an assembler program with no subroutines.

But OO *REQUIRES* messages.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>However, wikipedia (which I also mentioned because it might meet your
>>level of intelligence), says under "Fundamenta l Concepts":
>>
>>"Method (also known as message) — how code can use an object of some
>>class. A method is a form of subroutine operating on a single object[/color]
>
>
> Other languages have had the ability to create subroutines, and to be able
> to call those subrutines, for ages. There is nothing special about that
> which only eists in OOP.
>[/color]

Sure, they *HAVE THE ABILITY*. In OO, you *MUST CREATE THEM*.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>. Methods may be divided into queries returning the current state and
>>commands changing it:[/color]
>
>
> Other langages have had the ability for a module to have several entry
> points, and for each entry point to do something different, for decades.
> There is nothing special about his technique which is unique to OOP,
> therefore saying that it is a fundamental priciple of OOP is entirely
> misleading. AFAIAC it is a fundamental requirement of EVERY language, OO and
> non-OO, to be able to call one module from another. This is a standard
> requirement, there is nothing special aout it at all.
>[/color]

You just don't seem to understand the difference between *HAVING THE ABILITY*
and *REQUIRING* something.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>a Dog could have a query Age to say how old it is, and command chase
>>(Rabbit target) to start it chasing a rabbit. A method may also do both,
>>but some authorities (e.g. Bertrand Meyer) recommend they be kept
>>separate. Sometimes access to the data of an object is restricted to the
>>methods of its class."
>>
>>It is important because that's how you communicate with objects. It's the
>>interface, which is public, instead of the implementation, which is
>>private.[/color]
>
>
> Calling a function and passing parameters to it, and getting parameters
> back, is not something which is unique to OO. It is a standard feature of
> EVERY language, therefore to say that it is a fundamental principle of OOP
> carries no more weight than saying the ability to declare variables is a
> fundamental principle of OOP. It is oneof those obvious things which should
> not have to be stated.
>[/color]

Sure it's a fundamental principal. Because OO *REQUIRES IT*.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>But if you understood OO as well as you claim you would understand that.[/color]
>
>
> The difference between an OO and a non-OO language is that one has
> encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism while the other does not. Both
> have messaging (the ability to call functions) so that is a complete red
> herring.
>[/color]

And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.

You really ARE dense, aren't you?

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:HNadnet0zs aECjzZnZ2dnUVZ_ uudnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>> There is nothing special with messaging. It's a piece of code calling a
>> function, which has existed in many non-OO languages for decades. There
>> is no difference between calling a function and calling a method
>> (function) within an object.
>>
>> OOP is about encapsulation, inheritance and polymorhism, and the ability
>> to create objects from classes. It is taken for granted that there is a
>> method of communicating with each of the objets ou create. There is
>> nothing special about "messaging" at all.
>>[/color]
>
> Well, the fact is, messages (function calls) are OPTIONAL in other
> languages. You can build a C program without any functions (other than
> main()). You can build an assembler program with no subroutines.[/color]

While it is true that you can write a program which doesn't call any
subroutines or functions, it is still part of the language as standard.
[color=blue]
> But OO *REQUIRES* messages.[/color]

So what? Messaging is the same as calling a function or subroutine, and this
is a standard feature of EVERY computer language. There is nothing in OOP
that makes it unique.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>However, wikipedia (which I also mentioned because it might meet your
>>>level of intelligence), says under "Fundamenta l Concepts":
>>>
>>>"Method (also known as message) — how code can use an object of some
>>>class. A method is a form of subroutine operating on a single object[/color]
>>
>>
>> Other languages have had the ability to create subroutines, and to be
>> able to call those subrutines, for ages. There is nothing special about
>> that which only eists in OOP.
>>[/color]
>
> Sure, they *HAVE THE ABILITY*. In OO, you *MUST CREATE THEM*.[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>. Methods may be divided into queries returning the current state and
>>>commands changing it:[/color]
>>
>>
>> Other langages have had the ability for a module to have several entry
>> points, and for each entry point to do something different, for decades.
>> There is nothing special about his technique which is unique to OOP,
>> therefore saying that it is a fundamental priciple of OOP is entirely
>> misleading. AFAIAC it is a fundamental requirement of EVERY language, OO
>> and non-OO, to be able to call one module from another. This is a
>> standard requirement, there is nothing special aout it at all.
>>[/color]
>
> You just don't seem to understand the difference between *HAVING THE
> ABILITY* and *REQUIRING* something.[/color]

Your point is that messaging is a fundamental principle of OOP which sets it
apart from non-OOP languages. My point is that tyhe same feature exists in
ALL computer languages. If the only real difference is that in OOP it is
*REQUIRED* whereas in other languages it is *OPTIONAL* I think you are
making a mountain out of a molehill. The things which are supposed to make a
language OO instead of non-OO are only supposed to exist in OO languages, so
if messaging already exists in non-OO languages then it cannoit be a
fundamental principle of OO.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>a Dog could have a query Age to say how old it is, and command chase
>>>(Rabbit target) to start it chasing a rabbit. A method may also do both,
>>>but some authorities (e.g. Bertrand Meyer) recommend they be kept
>>>separate. Sometimes access to the data of an object is restricted to the
>>>methods of its class."
>>>
>>>It is important because that's how you communicate with objects. It's
>>>the interface, which is public, instead of the implementation, which is
>>>private.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Calling a function and passing parameters to it, and getting parameters
>> back, is not something which is unique to OO. It is a standard feature of
>> EVERY language, therefore to say that it is a fundamental principle of
>> OOP carries no more weight than saying the ability to declare variables
>> is a fundamental principle of OOP. It is oneof those obvious things which
>> should not have to be stated.
>>[/color]
>
> Sure it's a fundamental principal. Because OO *REQUIRES IT*.[/color]

That does not make it a fundamental principle in my book. If non-OO
languages did not have messaging then that would be a different matter, but
they do, so it isn't.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>But if you understood OO as well as you claim you would understand that.[/color]
>>
>>
>> The difference between an OO and a non-OO language is that one has
>> encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism while the other does not.
>> Both have messaging (the ability to call functions) so that is a complete
>> red herring.
>>[/color]
>
> And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.
>
> You really ARE dense, aren't you?[/color]

Not as dense as you. The principles of OO are features that do not exist in
other languages. Having something which is required instead of optional DOES
NOT MAKE IT A FEATURE. Non-OO languages have had messaging for decades, so
messaging is not a fundamental feature of OO.

Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism do not exist in non-OO
languages, so THEY are fundamental principles. Messaging is not. The fact
that OO requires messaging while others do not is totally insignificant.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:HNadnet0zs aECjzZnZ2dnUVZ_ uudnZ2d@comcast .com...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[/color]
>>
>>And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.
>>
>>You really ARE dense, aren't you?[/color]
>
>
> Not as dense as you. The principles of OO are features that do not exist in
> other languages. Having something which is required instead of optional DOES
> NOT MAKE IT A FEATURE. Non-OO languages have had messaging for decades, so
> messaging is not a fundamental feature of OO.
>
> Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism do not exist in non-OO
> languages, so THEY are fundamental principles. Messaging is not. The fact
> that OO requires messaging while others do not is totally insignificant.
>[/color]

Not at all. Quite frankly, I really don't care what YOU think. What I'm
worried about are the asinine opinions you foster off onto unsuspecting beginners.

I agree you are an expert - ex meaning "has been" and spert being a "drip under
pressure". Describes you exactly.

Once you get some REAL WORLD experience under your belt - and I'm not talking a
few web pages - I'm talking about projects with dozens of programmers and
hundreds of K LOC, we can talk again. Until then I'll just consider you to be
the uneducated idiot you are.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jim Carlock]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> and
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> argued a bunch
about objects, their encapsulated data, and how events
change the nature of the object...

I'm curious as to what the simplest object oriented program
in PHP would be. Either one of you that might be able to
suggest something or provide a demonstration?

Thanks.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Jim Carlock wrote:[color=blue]
> "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> and
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> argued a bunch
> about objects, their encapsulated data, and how events
> change the nature of the object...
>
> I'm curious as to what the simplest object oriented program
> in PHP would be. Either one of you that might be able to
> suggest something or provide a demonstration?
>
> Thanks.
>[/color]

Let's see.. It would be one object with a single attribute and one method. The
program would just need to create an object of

Here's one with a a couple of functions to do something useful. It formats the
current date according to "US" or "European" standards and remembers the format.
Note it can be easily expanded to include other date functions and formats.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>Simple date display</title>
<?php
class Date {
private $format = 'm/d/Y';

function setFormat($form at) {
switch($format) {
case 'US':
$this->format = 'm/d/Y';
return true;
case 'European':
$this->format = 'd.m.Y';
return true;
}
return false;
}
function today() {
return date($this->format);
}
}
?>
</head>
<body>
<?php

$date = new Date();
echo 'Date in U.S. format: ' . $date->today() . "<br>\n";
$date->setFormat('Eur opean');
echo 'Date in European format: ' . $date->today() . "<br>\n";
?>
</body>
</html>

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jim Carlock" <anonymous@127. 0.0.1> wrote in message
news:PQjog.2106 1$LT2.18735@tor nado.tampabay.r r.com...[color=blue]
> "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> and
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> argued a bunch
> about objects, their encapsulated data, and how events
> change the nature of the object...
>
> I'm curious as to what the simplest object oriented program
> in PHP would be. Either one of you that might be able to
> suggest something or provide a demonstration?
>
> Thanks.[/color]

I have a small demonstration application which can be accessed from
http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...plication.html, and also its
big brother which can be accessed at http://www.radicore.org/

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:WJSdnXcda4 5lUTzZnZ2dnUVZ_ oKdnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:HNadnet0zs aECjzZnZ2dnUVZ_ uudnZ2d@comcast .com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>
>>>
>>>And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.
>>>
>>>You really ARE dense, aren't you?[/color]
>>
>>
>> Not as dense as you. The principles of OO are features that do not exist
>> in other languages. Having something which is required instead of
>> optional DOES NOT MAKE IT A FEATURE. Non-OO languages have had messaging
>> for decades, so messaging is not a fundamental feature of OO.
>>
>> Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism do not exist in non-OO
>> languages, so THEY are fundamental principles. Messaging is not. The fact
>> that OO requires messaging while others do not is totally insignificant.
>>[/color]
>
> Not at all. Quite frankly, I really don't care what YOU think. What I'm
> worried about are the asinine opinions you foster off onto unsuspecting
> beginners.
>
> I agree you are an expert - ex meaning "has been" and spert being a "drip
> under pressure". Describes you exactly.
>
> Once you get some REAL WORLD experience under your belt - and I'm not
> talking a few web pages - I'm talking about projects with dozens of
> programmers and hundreds of K LOC, we can talk again. Until then I'll
> just consider you to be the uneducated idiot you are.[/color]

The size of project does not determine what is OO and what is not.

That still does not disguise the fact that what you are calling a
fundamental principle of OO is not unique to OO at all, but something which
has been a part of every other language for decades. The fact that it is
required instead of optional is a trivial point which most intelligent
people would not even consider.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Object Oriented PHP

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:WJSdnXcda4 5lUTzZnZ2dnUVZ_ oKdnZ2d@comcast .com...
>[color=green]
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:HNadnet 0zsaECjzZnZ2dnU VZ_uudnZ2d@comc ast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.
>>>>
>>>>You really ARE dense, aren't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not as dense as you. The principles of OO are features that do not exist
>>>in other languages. Having something which is required instead of
>>>optional DOES NOT MAKE IT A FEATURE. Non-OO languages have had messaging
>>>for decades, so messaging is not a fundamental feature of OO.
>>>
>>>Encapsulatio n, inheritance and polymorphism do not exist in non-OO
>>>languages, so THEY are fundamental principles. Messaging is not. The fact
>>>that OO requires messaging while others do not is totally insignificant.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Not at all. Quite frankly, I really don't care what YOU think. What I'm
>>worried about are the asinine opinions you foster off onto unsuspecting
>>beginners.
>>
>>I agree you are an expert - ex meaning "has been" and spert being a "drip
>>under pressure". Describes you exactly.
>>
>>Once you get some REAL WORLD experience under your belt - and I'm not
>>talking a few web pages - I'm talking about projects with dozens of
>>programmers and hundreds of K LOC, we can talk again. Until then I'll
>>just consider you to be the uneducated idiot you are.[/color]
>
>
> The size of project does not determine what is OO and what is not.
>
> That still does not disguise the fact that what you are calling a
> fundamental principle of OO is not unique to OO at all, but something which
> has been a part of every other language for decades. The fact that it is
> required instead of optional is a trivial point which most intelligent
> people would not even consider.
>[/color]

It makes a huge difference. You wouldn't get by with your sloppy practices on a
large project. You would have to follow good OO principles to get the job done.
Quite frankly, Tony, I've seen guys like you on big projects. And they don't
make it. They just can't understand why their practices are a bunch of crap.

And I wonder about what Booch (the creator of OO theory) would say about your
"trivial point" - which he considers a fundamental concept in OO. I think he
knows a *little* more about it than you do!

Moron.


--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Tony Marston]

Re: Object Oriented PHP


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:8sCdnSW4ds bo_D_ZnZ2dnUVZ_ qSdnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:WJSdnXcda4 5lUTzZnZ2dnUVZ_ oKdnZ2d@comcast .com...
>>[/color][/color]
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> That still does not disguise the fact that what you are calling a
>> fundamental principle of OO is not unique to OO at all, but something
>> which has been a part of every other language for decades. The fact that
>> it is required instead of optional is a trivial point which most
>> intelligent people would not even consider.
>>[/color]
>
> It makes a huge difference.[/color]

When most people are already aware of the fact every language already has a
built-in messaging feature, they do not consider the fact that in OO it is
mandatory instead of optional a point worth considering. So to give it
elevated status and call it a fundamental principle of OO is just OTT. The
fundamental principles of OOP, what sets it apart from other paradigms, is
encapsulation, inheritance and polymorhism. Every paradigm has message
passing, so it cannot be a fundamental principle of any of them. It is a
*standard* feature, not a *differentiatin g* feature.
[color=blue]
> You wouldn't get by with your sloppy practices on a large project. You
> would have to follow good OO principles to get the job done.[/color]

The people on that failed project were following "good OO principles" which
is why the project failed. I ignored their failed ideas and consequently was
able to produce working software in 2 man-weeks instead of their 3
man-years. So you can take your "good OO principles" and stick them where
the sun doesn't shine.
[color=blue]
> Quite frankly, Tony, I've seen guys like you on big projects. And they
> don't make it. They just can't understand why their practices are a bunch
> of crap.[/color]

And I've seen guys like you on big projects who have a knack of turning OOP
into POO(H).
[color=blue]
> And I wonder about what Booch (the creator of OO theory) would say about
> your "trivial point" - which he considers a fundamental concept in OO. I
> think he knows a *little* more about it than you do![/color]

And a *lot* more than you do.
[color=blue]
> Moron.[/color]

Right back at ya.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

http://www.radicore.org