[ciapug] Re: Re: Web Professionalism

parksmike at dwx.com parksmike at dwx.com
Fri Nov 25 13:27:37 CST 2005 

Personnaly, it is dependant on the project. 

If you are building a site that may only have a few pieces of functionality. If procedural programming for these few functions can be done in 5 hrs. and OO may take 10 hrs. 

If the project was bid at 5 to 7hrs. Do you eat the 3 hrs to write OO code, or get it done in the time frame with procedural. In this case procedural wins. Why make a Cadillac for something that only requires a moped?

If the project is a massive multidemensional project, that is reusing several pieces of code to do several diffent things, definitely OO is the way to go. However, there may be parts of this massive multidemensional project, that may make more sense with a bit of procedural programming too.

But then, there are also other demensions of the question, this is not just a question of "To OO, or not to OO". In a development group there are designers, and there are programmers. In the perfect world there are more than just one programmer and one designer for a project. But imperfectly, that's all you get. And in some cases both have to dwell into the others domain. 

A programmer may need to insert some piece of design into a function or procedure to get the output to look a certain way. A designer, may need to have something changed in the programming code. Or, something is not output correctly in a function, or precedure, and someone has to correct the issue. So in this case, the code you write has to be understandable to at least one other person you work with.

I don't believe that there is a definite separation of church and state in our business. Designers and programmer often have to take on both roles. Even in a team environment.

To use the deer in front of a Peterbilt concept. Lets say, your in the middle of a several hundres hour project, you get to work one morning. On the way to work on the interstate, you get hit by a semi, you are either severly injured or dead. Can someone open your code, look at it, and continue on without a problem?

If a designer, who knows enough about the programming language, whether it is PHP, C#, ASP(.Net), JAVA, etc.. to do simple stuff like email forms, or basic database connectivity may be able to hobble allong until a replacement could be found. Or is the project at a complete stand still?

How many of us can say without a doubt, anyone could continue on?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Mike Parks

----- Original Message -----
From: ciapug-request at cialug.org [mailto:ciapug-request at cialug.org]
Sent: 11/25/2005 12:00:03 PM
To: ciapug at cialug.org
Subject: ciapug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 12

> Send ciapug mailing list submissions to
> 	ciapug at cialug.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ciapug-request at cialug.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ciapug-owner at cialug.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ciapug digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Web Professionalism (David Champion)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:34:34 -0600
> From: David Champion <dave at visionary.com>
> Subject: Re: [ciapug] Web Professionalism
> To: ciapug at cialug.org
> Message-ID: <43874B2A.8080501 at visionary.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> I don't think OO really inherently makes code more portable or reusable. 
> You can write good reusable code using procedural / functional calls, 
> and you can write bad code in OO.
> 
> IMHO there are times when OO code makes sense, and times when procedural 
> code makes sense.
> 
> I've seen examples of people writing OO code and abstracting things that 
> don't need to be abstracted, and it only serves to obfuscate the code, 
> when a simple function call would have given the same results, and would 
> have been simpler.
> 
> I've also been in the middle of doing a procedural function in PHP and 
> wishing I'd done it as OO, because it would have been a better fit.
> 
> I have done OO in other languages... and I know the benefits. I haven't 
> done a lot of OO in PHP, but I'm planning to do more once I'm using PHP5 
> in production, since the OO model has improved.
> 
> -dc
> 
> Jerry Heiselman wrote:
> > I use and OO style of programming.  I have learned that OO makes your
> > code much easier to make portable/re-distributable and I have a
> > tendency to go back to my code and try to modify it after months of
> > not even looking at it.  OO coding makes this a much easier process
> > and you can track error messages and where they cam from.
> > 
> > I still use procedural programming for the application code instead of
> > following the ideal that even your application should be an object.  I
> > found that the "application as an object" just never seems to click
> > and make much sense to me.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > 
> > On 11/25/05, Dave J. Hala Jr. <dave at 58ghz.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>I have all kinds of inc files with string formating libraries, database
> >>connectivity, listboxes and all that stuff... I have tons of code that I
> >>reuse, that code  is kept in include files.  I have my html include,
> >>database connectivity include, formatting include, etc.
> >>
> >>They are just not called "objects" and "classes", they are collections
> >>of functions and procedures.
> >>
> >>I have almost no php code in any of my .html files, in fact I keep all
> >>my html and php code seperate.
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 09:45, Carl Olsen wrote:
> >>
> >>>I appreciate it.  I think you verbalized it well.  You are still learning
> >>>and your code just reflects the level you are at.  That's exactly what I'm
> >>>doing.  The difference I see is that I frequently do the same things over
> >>>and over again.  I'm frequently writing code to maintain some kind of
> >>>inventory table in a database.  I've written class files that contain all
> >>>the code I need for display a drop down list (you feed it the name you want
> >>>the input control to have, the value if it has a value, and all the html
> >>>necessary to rending the control.  I've written class files with nothing but
> >>>string formatting functions.  I usually write a class that opens and closes
> >>>my connection to the database and then my other classes that maintain the
> >>>tables inherit from that database class.  The more I do it, the more I like
> >>>it.  It makes the code modular and reusable.  I'm finding it easier to go
> >>>back and maintain it later.  I'm moving from a procedural model to an object
> >>>oriented model, because I've been doing the procedural model for so long
> >>>it's no longer difficult.  When I first started learning PHP, it was easier
> >>>to drop all the code directly into the HTML page in the exact spot where it
> >>>was going to perform some function.  Now that I feel comfortable with that,
> >>>I'm looking for ways to make the code more modular, and OOP is it.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you very much!
> >>>
> >>>Carl
> >>>http://www.carl-olsen.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ciapug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:ciapug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf
> >>>Of Dave J. Hala Jr.
> >>>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:58 AM
> >>>To: carl-olsen at mchsi.com; PHP List
> >>>Subject: RE: [ciapug] Web Professionalism
> >>>
> >>>It's difficult to verbalize. Let me try... I think that procedural
> >>>programming is more like the thought process I use.   Not that I don't
> >>>sometimes think in "object mode", because I usually do at the beginning
> >>>of the process. (that's the curse of us south paws...)
> >>>
> >>>Usually, I'll conceptualize the problem, then break it into components
> >>>(objects)  Typically, I'll start in the middle of the problem and work
> >>>my way out. Once I have compartmentalized all my components, (objects)
> >>>I'll define each one using psuedo code. Then I'll convert that to code.
> >>>
> >>>The pseudo code tends to be really linear and that seems to favor
> >>>procedural methods. If I had "pre-made" objects, I could probably skip
> >>>the definition stage. Then I would be doing OOP. However, most of my
> >>>stuff is very, very specific and won't fit well into a generic object
> >>>container. ( did I say that?!!)
> >>>
> >>>Not to be off subject, but I think the key component of the "web
> >>>proffesional" topic isn't really about how everyone else is doing it, or
> >>>what the current trends are, but its more about continually learning and
> >>>applying new techniques as they are appropriate in your envirnoment. In
> >>>other words, developers need to continually grow and evolve, as do the
> >>>systems they maintain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 19:45, Carl Olsen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>What do you like better about procedural?
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: ciapug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:ciapug-bounces at cialug.org] On
> >>>
> >>>Behalf
> >>>
> >>>>Of Dave J. Hala Jr.
> >>>>Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:04 PM
> >>>>To: carl-olsen at mchsi.com; PHP List
> >>>>Subject: RE: [ciapug] Web Professionalism
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not against OOP PHP code, I do a little of it but I still prefer to
> >>>>do procedural.
> >>>>
> >>>>On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:27, Carl Olsen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I have a question for everyone.  How many people prefer to write
> >>>>
> >>>>procedural
> >>>>
> >>>>>PHP code as opposed to object oriented (OOP) PHP code?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Carl
> >>>>>http://www.carl-olsen.com/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: ciapug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:ciapug-bounces at cialug.org] On
> >>>>
> >>>>Behalf
> >>>>
> >>>>>Of laith
> >>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:43 AM
> >>>>>To: ciapug at cialug.org
> >>>>>Subject: Re: [ciapug] Web Professionalism
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Keeping up is always good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Unfortunately not everyone thinks this way so many good things you might
> >>>
> >>>>>learn will not be useful for longer than it should take.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Laith
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Chris Van Cleve wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There has been a flurry of articles this week about New Web
> >>>>>>professionalism.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>See: http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_11.html#a000590
> >>>>>>http://webstandards.org/
> >>>>>>http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200511/
> >>>>>>a_web_professional_can_never_stop_learning/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I believe in this whole-heartedly. Keeping up with standards,
> >>>>>>methodologies, trends, etc. is important as a true professional. I am
> >>>
> >>>>>>curious what everyone else's take on this is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Chris VC
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ciapug mailing list
> ciapug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
> 
> 
> End of ciapug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 12
> *************************************
>

More information about the ciapug mailing list