NYCPHP Meetup

[Edward Potter]

When it get to this abstract level, just think of objects as cells &
functions as peptides carrying messages (variables) to hungry
mitochondria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion) waiting to
be fed to make those cells work for you. If you have all your code
working correctly, you'll be able to Interconnect them all and you'll
get a Paris Hilton - or something like that. :-)

Then take 2 Prozac, and re-boot . . .

ed  (works for me)

On 9/30/07, John Zabroski <johnzabroski at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The benefit of object-orientation is message dispatch.  Objects are peers.
> They define what to do, not how to do it.  Delegation of responsibilities is
> therefore way more dependable a concept than simply polymorphism.  If the
> notion of a network of inter-cooperating agents working together to
> accomplish a task resembles your task, then objects might make sense.
>
> Polymorphism isn't why object-oriented frameworks are successful.  In
> general, frameworks are successful because the problem application domain
> was well understood before it was ever translated into code.  Frameworks
> tend to address a vertical line of business (some ill-defined problem
> application domain) or a horizontal line of business (i.e., security).
> Frameworks are also successful because they usually glue together
> off-the-shelf software in interesting ways that rapidly solve problems.
>
>  Also, if you want to make your code to be very simple, then just obey the
> first rule of programming: figure out what you want to say before you figure
> out how to say it.  Meaningful abstractions can never be crafted in the
> absence of a well-defined context.
>
> Programming language concepts don't make programming simple.  Deep,
> penetrating knowledge of the problem application domain makes programming
> simpler.  Having a language that you can easily translate that knowledge
> into is also a boon, just as having off-the-shelf software that you can glue
> into your architecture is a boon.
>
>
> Michael B Allen <ioplex at gmail.com> wrote:
>  OOP provides one major benefit - polymorphism. If you don't need
> polymorphism, you should not be using OOP. But in some cases
> polymorphism can make your code very simple and yet highly extensible.
> It *can* be extremely powerful.
>
>  ________________________________
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
> and lay it on us.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
> NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
> http://www.nyphpcon.com
>
> Show Your Participation in New York PHP
> http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
>


-- 
the Blog: http://www.utopiaparkway.com
the Karma: http://www.coderswithconscience.com
the Projects: http://flickr.com/photos/86842405@N00/
the Store: http://astore.amazon.com/httpwwwutopic-20