IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New We've had this argument before.
And you've not convinced anyone.

Objects can make code do some amazing things and often through economy of scale. So it's 'bloated' for a small solution? With 60 lines and 10 minutes, I can leverage over 500 lines and I have a brand-new database-backed object that has late-loading, automatic caching, intelligent saving and a very easy to use collection. Another 60 lines and I get it all for another object. With ten objects, my core code is now 50 per object. With twenty, it's 25 per object. And the object notation means I can re-factor some part of the core object and everything automatically and invisibly benefits. This is much harder to do with procedures.

Wade.
"Don't give up!"
New Prove it by showing me "difficult" procedural code
OO'ers are often bad procedural/DB programmers such that I might be able to offer you tips if you show me procedural being "bad".
________________
oop.ismad.com
New You don't pay me well enough to code that.
"Don't give up!"
New I didn't pay you to make unsubstantiated claims either
But you did it for free.
________________
oop.ismad.com
     The Love Bloat - Scary OOP Mess - (tablizer) - (24)
         You're being religious, again - (warmachine) - (17)
             You proved my point - (tablizer) - (16)
                 Had to use OOP, not attribute driven, for one of my apps - (warmachine) - (15)
                     Polymorphism is limited - (tablizer) - (14)
                         I'm not a religious zealot - (warmachine) - (13)
                             Domain things rarely divide nicely into "types" - (tablizer) - (12)
                                 They divide about as neatly into types as the do into tables -NT - (tuberculosis) - (11)
                                     Bull, hierarchies cannot do sets without duplication -NT - (tablizer) - (10)
                                         I have no idea what you are talking about - (tuberculosis) - (9)
                                             Take sample sets and try to turn them into trees - (tablizer) - (8)
                                                 Why would I do that? - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                                     Reinventing query languages in Smalltalk again? - (tablizer) - (6)
                                                         Smalltalk queries/collection operations predate SQL - (tuberculosis) - (5)
                                                             It does not predate OTHER relational languages -NT - (tablizer) - (4)
                                                                 What are you NUTS? - (folkert) - (3)
                                                                     First relational languages appeared in the early 70's - (tablizer) - (2)
                                                                         Smalltalk was 71 - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                             Some context... - (ChrisR)
         Java is not OO. - (tuberculosis) - (1)
             Can't tell because there are too many definitions of OO - (tablizer)
         We've had this argument before. - (static) - (3)
             Prove it by showing me "difficult" procedural code - (tablizer) - (2)
                 You don't pay me well enough to code that. -NT - (static) - (1)
                     I didn't pay you to make unsubstantiated claims either - (tablizer)

dude...?
161 ms