Object Oriented Programming suck

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, but there you may (now) be wrong. I've just looked at http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.empty.php. Versus other links where "empty" seems to be a function or not as the whim takes it, that seems to be a fairly authoritative site, and they have quietly dropped the "not a function" bit. It still lists "empty" as a syntactic token, which is pretty silly. It should have been just demoted to semantics.

I don't think I had. Or maybe I had and I'd not bothered to long-term-remember it.

I think we're into the realms of "Why shouldn't false be the same as true? why make a special case of false?". Mind you, in Lisp, that would be the case. IIRC true is T and false is F and T is true but so is F.

Last edited by lau on 10 Apr 2007, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is pretty silly that's what I'm trying to say. You have to look there logic for doing so. They wanted a kind of opposite to var but not quite. It is no different (or better) than !$x except it will check inside an array to see it has values. Actually the zero equals true is quite poignant because with empty "0" and 0 return true (well as of php 4 ). So they obviously got a bit confused. But because of implicit types they had to choose which way they are going to convert "0" and 0 either to string or number. Whereas why not treat 0 and "0" evaluating to true no conversion necessary? No special case i.e. "1" and 1 is treated the same. If I input 0, I want 0!! !. Trying to make it like 'real world' is bad I don't think that is what OO should be about.


No worries:) my memory is pretty bad.


In the case of ruby it is about being consistent 0 is in FixNum class. nil and false have their own classes so they are not inconsistent. I'm not saying you can't have uniqueness that would be crazy.

Well, I have programmed a lot. Mostly in a few languages but I have tried most of them in use in 1990.

I HATED SmallTalk's use of OOP. It was more of an obstacle than a tool for me.

I couldn't stand early augmented implementations of OOP in C. I think C++ was the first one to get it right.

I got used to Java, but its strict OOP style is a pain for fast coding.

I prefer Visual Basic OOP style, which is not quite true OOP, but I like it anyway.

I really like most procedural languages. I remember grinding out code in REXX in the morning, BAL at 2PM, two flavors of C at night, and 680x or x86 assembler the next day, and then some SQL and Visual Basic Script the day after. The transitions seemed to be near effortless back then

I hated APL, Lisp, and Prolog. I could never get my mind to think the way they required me to think.

I have had trouble get Perl, HTML, CSS, and PHP to stick with me since I, being a network guy now, don't code for work much anymore.

I really don't like how OOP was hyped. It is NOT more natural for me, but it does have its place.

Sometimes, though, I had wished the OOP languages had not been such a hinderance when I was developing programs, but I was thankful for their help when I had to debug someone else's code. All in all though, I don't think it was worth the trouble for me.

Just my PI cents