RE: [PHP] Re: Copying an Object

From: Peter Lind > On 24 September 2010 14:22, Bob McConnell <rvm@cbord.com> wrote: >> From: David Hutto >> >>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Gary <php-general@garydjones.name> wrote: >>>> Daniel Kolbo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Say you have two classes: human and male.  Further, say male extends >>>>> human.  Let's say you have a human object.  Then later you want to make >>>>> that human object a male object.  This seems to be a pretty reasonable >>>>> thing to request of our objects. >>>> >>>> I don't think any human can change gender without major surgery, but I >>>> don't know if you just chose your example badly or whether you really >>>> think objects should be able to mutate into other types of object >>>> without some kind of special treatment. >>> >>> But it would work in something like makehuman, where you start with a neuter >>> form and scale one way or the other for physical features. If I >>> remember correctly, >>> we're' all xx until you become xy(genetically speaking). >> >> This is one of the details that really bothers me about OOP. It makes > it impossible to implement some very reasonable scenarios. 80% of the > time, when a patron is added to a system, we don't know which gender > they are. More than 50% of the time, we will never know, since the > client doesn't keep track of it. But the rest of them will be assigned > sometime after they were added. i.e. the gender assignment comes from > a secondary source that is not available at the time the patron is > entered. >> > > If you can't handle that, it's not the fault of OOP but your lack of > programming skills in OOP I'd say (and I mean no disrespect there, I'm > just pretty sure your scenario can be handled very easily in OOP). > > And no, I have no urge to defend OOP in PHP, I just see this entire > thread as a complete non-starter: if the language doesn't let you do > something in a particular way, how about you stop, take a breather, > then ask if perhaps there's a better way in the language to do what > you want done? That would normally be a much more productive and > intelligent response than either a) pressing on in the face of failure > or b) complaining about your specific needs and how the language fails > to meet them. I have no problem with that idea. My first reaction would be to return to a procedural format and forget about objects altogether. I have been struggling with them for more than ten years now, and still don't understand the intent or purpose behind them. They simply appear to be a lot of unnecessary overhead with no real advantages in return. Even multi-tasking was a lot easier to figure out. Unfortunately, I keep getting stuck working with other people's applications that are already cast in objects. It makes me wish I could take early retirement this winter. Sorry for the rant. I'll go hide in the corner and be quiet for a while. Bob McConnell