[ciapug] Web Professionalism

Mon Nov 28 19:40:34 CST 2005

I'm doing the same thing.  I got that far in my book and decided to start
writing some code.  I just need to find time to do some more reading.  I
think you are right about this raising a red flag.  If 80% of the code is
the same, then you know there's got to be a way to create an abstract class
and inherit from it.  It's sounds like I'm at the same level as you, so I
don't have the answers yet.  All I can say is that my code is looking
better, getting easier to understand and getting easier to update.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: ciapug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:ciapug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf
Of Scott Phillips
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:10 AM
To: ciapug at cialug.org
Subject: RE: [ciapug] Web Professionalism

Here's the problem I've been having with my OO approach. If someone has any 
words of wisdom here, that'd be great.

Every time I need to work with  a new "thing" (object) I find myself 
creating a new class that is almost identical to all the others I've 
written. In fact, when pressed for time, I've been known to save a copy of 
an existing class, do a find/replace on a number of terms, and then make 
whatever changes are necessary. So I've got a dozen or more 200-300 line 
classes that are 80% identical (and that's with stuff like db connectivity 
abstracted out). They all seem to do the same things... get some data, 
manipulate it, store it, retrieve it. Yeah, I know that this should raise 
some big red flags in terms of my approach but I keep doing it anyway.

At 04:49 PM 11/25/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>I agree.  There's not a whole lot of difference so far, but I think that's
>because I haven't learned enough to do much else with classes than put a
>bunch of functions inside them.  I really haven't begun to scratch the
>surface yet.  I'm inheriting my data connections from a class file, which
>seems like an easier to do it.  I'm not sure I couldn't have done the same
>thing with a bunch of functions in an included file.  I guess the main
>benefit I'm seeing is that I'm putting a lot more code into functions and
>putting them in a separate file.  I'm not sure it's OOP that is making me
do
>that, but I wasn't doing it before and I'm really starting to see the
>benefit because it makes things a lot easier to figure out when I come back
>and look at the code several months later.  I'm giving OOP the credit for
>that, although I may be off base.
>
>Carl
>
>-----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 11:10 AM
>To: carl-olsen at mchsi.com; PHP List
>Subject: RE: [ciapug] Web Professionalism
>
>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
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ciapug mailing list
> > > > ciapug at cialug.org
> > > > http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ciapug mailing list
> > > > ciapug at cialug.org
> > > > http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
>--
>
>Open Source Information Systems, Inc. (OSIS)
>Dave J. Hala Jr., President <dave at osis.us>
>641.485.1606
>
>_______________________________________________
>ciapug mailing list
>ciapug at cialug.org
>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
>
>_______________________________________________
>ciapug mailing list
>ciapug at cialug.org
>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug

_______________________________________________
ciapug mailing list
ciapug at cialug.org
http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug