Re: OO purism sucks - this is a rant for anyone who is allergic to that kind of thing...

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Jochem Maas wrote:

I understand the point you made below - you have made this argument before and I, for one, accepted it as valid when I first read the discussion on internals - which is why I avoided ranting about that (and changes like it)

But you didn't avoid it, you used it as an example to back up your rant.

that wasn't me that was Robert in a reply to my rant.

And on the OO side your argument gets shaky as well. The whole point of OO is to add a very structured layer on top of your code to make it more consistent and more maintainable than the equivalent procedural code. There is nothing you can do in OO that you can't do with completely freeform procedural code. When you choose to go OO, you choose a set of rules and a certain code structure that by definition is going to be somewhat constrained. The argument over exactly how constrained this should be and where we should loosen things up will continue until the end of time. PPP and Interfaces are all about constraints. They serve no practical purpose whatsoever other than to add constraints.

the point I *tried* to make (granted maybe not very well) was that the engine constraints & behaviour themselves are not particularly consistent *and* they change too often and in too arbitrary a fashion. ...