NYCPHP Meetup

[Tom Melendez]

Well, I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but since 
George threw his hat in, I have to back him up.

I agree with George. OO is a great way to keep things organized and 
modular, but I'm not thrilled with "everything" being OO for no 
particular reason.

It is ironic that it is going this way, as I met Rasmus at the BOF at 
Linuxworld in 1999 (I believe it was then, there was only six or seven 
of us there), and he specifically said that he DIDN'T believe PHP needed 
OO, which was why it wasn't truly implemented back then. In hindsight, I 
can't say I totally agree, as I think having the OO functionality is a 
good thing. But, who does the "Java-esque" syntax and features of PHP5 
really benefit?

Tom
http://www.liphp.org

George Schlossnagle wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Joseph Crawford wrote:
>
>> i believe PHP is a sort of framework but it's not an OO framework, i
>> think php should move itself to be more OO and it would be considered
>> a framework, i mean rather than mysql_fetch_array it could be
>> something like DB->MySQL->FetchArray() DB->MsSQL->FetchArray() all of
>> which is possible to do by writing abstraction layers but a out of the
>> box solution that was the standard for php would be great :D
>
>
> Besides the fact that this particular example is covered entirely by 
> PDO (new db interface layer becoming standard in 5.1), why does 
> everything need to be OO? I like OO as much as the next guy (at least 
> as much as some next guys), but I have yet to see many examples that 
> demonstrate where a lack of an OOP access pattern to some core PHP 
> facility is really, truly, insurmountably less usable than the 
> procedural way.
>
> George
>
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Talk Mailing List
> AMP Technology
> Supporting Apache, MySQL and PHP
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> http://www.nyphp.org
>