Re: App Object (fixes) - Page 9


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: Re: App Object (fixes)

  1. #121
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On 5 Jun 2002 09:59:56 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >............ This statement, which he made as if it
    >was *fact*, is blatantly wrong.


    What statement? Where is the statement?

    >You are in fact implicitly writing a class for forms (which is already actually
    >written for you, you only provide methods/fields),


    Oh, no! Then that must make OOP even more intrusive than I thought!
    It's now given to writing a class for me! Even as I write this, who
    knows? Maybe the OOP bunny is secretly writing classes on my behalf,
    and all with my name on! How kind!

    But, hang about for a cotton pickin' minnit! The words "which is
    already actually written for you" must be the open sesame into this
    unbidden class-writing malarkey! So by purchasing a third-party grid,
    say, and popping an instance on to my form, I have been engaging in
    writing classes? Implicitly? Note: Even after placing said instance of
    grid on form, my project contains no modules of the .cls variety.
    Precisely none. (Oh, sorry, I forgot. I have to pronounce *.frm so
    that it sounds like *.cls, don't I?)

    "Gee, Mom, do I *have* to wait till tomorrow for my next tablet?"

    MM

  2. #122
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >>You are in fact implicitly writing a class for forms (which is already

    actually
    >>written for you, you only provide methods/fields),

    >
    >Oh, no! Then that must make OOP even more intrusive than I thought!
    >It's now given to writing a class for me! Even as I write this, who
    >knows? Maybe the OOP bunny is secretly writing classes on my behalf,
    >and all with my name on! How kind!


    Earth to Mike.. That is EXACTLY what VB6 does too.
    And, oh the horrors, it also happens in VB6 when you create a usercontrol!

    How utterly evil of MS, that their program has been secretly writing classes
    for you all this time!

    The bottom line remains unchanged.

    -Rob

  3. #123
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On 5 Jun 2002 11:37:01 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >And, oh the horrors, it also happens in VB6 when you create a usercontrol!


    I never did get round to creating a user control. Well, I tell a lie,
    I did once because I was bored, and so I thought I'd give it a go.
    Amazingly interesting it was, too.

    MM

  4. #124
    John Butler Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cfe58d0.841424@news.devx.com...
    > Oh, no! Then that must make OOP even more intrusive than I thought!
    > It's now given to writing a class for me! Even as I write this, who
    > knows? Maybe the OOP bunny is secretly writing classes on my behalf,
    > and all with my name on! How kind!


    What do you think the VB6 form is Mike, other than a class? Huh? But it's
    all so inobtrusive you say....well...how different is a VB.NET form realy
    huh? Oh...you wouldn't know.....

    > But, hang about for a cotton pickin' minnit! The words "which is
    > already actually written for you" must be the open sesame into this
    > unbidden class-writing malarkey! So by purchasing a third-party grid,
    > say, and popping an instance on to my form, I have been engaging in
    > writing classes? Implicitly? Note: Even after placing said instance of
    > grid on form, my project contains no modules of the .cls variety.
    > Precisely none. (Oh, sorry, I forgot. I have to pronounce *.frm so
    > that it sounds like *.cls, don't I?)
    >
    > "Gee, Mom, do I *have* to wait till tomorrow for my next tablet?"


    Please don't wait until tomorrow until you take the tablet...you need
    one..NOW!







  5. #125
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:19:57 +0100, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >Please don't wait until tomorrow until you take the tablet...you need
    >one..NOW!


    Exactly!

    MM

  6. #126
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    Mike Mitchell wrote:

    > So by purchasing a third-party grid,
    > say, and popping an instance on to my form, I have been engaging in
    > writing classes?


    Whoa... careful there Mike, dem "instance"s is OO talk. :-)

    Seriously, there is a contradiction in your attitude to OO. On the one
    hand, you appreciate using OO components from 3rd-parties, and on the
    other hand, you see no benefit in structuring your own code as
    components?

    Please don't deflect the question by appealing to the unwashed masses
    that don't create classes. I am only interested in why /you/ don't
    create classes.

    The great thing about creating your own classes is that you don't have
    to go to the extreme lengths that 3rd-parties go to with documentation,
    generic usage, design-time features, etc.. You can just create the
    classes specifically for what you need.

    In my experience, creating Classes equivalent to Modules requires no
    extra effort. The benefits are exactly the same as the "popping an
    instance" that you refer to. Your approach to coding seems to be "do as
    I say, but not as I do"?!? Confused...

    --
    David




  7. #127
    Aaron Sevivas Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >I never did get round to creating a user control.


    So to sum up your projects: you don't create classes, so you don't create
    components which = static forms, public functions in modules and other peoples
    components.?. I do understand how procedural programming has its benefits,
    but a project of any size must become a maintenance nightmare..?

  8. #128
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On 6 Jun 2002 00:17:43 -0800, "Aaron Sevivas"
    <aaronsevivas@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >So to sum up your projects: you don't create classes, so you don't create
    >components which = static forms, public functions in modules and other peoples
    >components.?. I do understand how procedural programming has its benefits,
    >but a project of any size must become a maintenance nightmare..?


    Not for me. Problems should always be fixed the moment they are
    discovered. I have always taken the approach that each and every new
    "feature" of the program under construction be modularised and that
    module be treated as a black box, tested separately, and then gently
    introduced into the main app -- always with a fall-back/roll-back
    safety valve if things go pear-shaped. With procedural design this is
    easy to do. You can cut and paste modules almost willy-nilly. With OOP
    all the objects in your hierarchy have to comply with the overall
    object model. Fine, if you're not intending to alter the object model
    very often and are just selling a turnkey chunk of functionality (e.g.
    ADO), but a potential nightmare when a business app's requirements can
    change from month to month, as the whims of management (maybe in
    partner companies), sail the IT ship across the choppy waters of
    healthy competition.

    MM

  9. #129
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:06:26 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >cut and paste modules almost willy-nilly


    Software design and engineering, according to Mike.


    --
    Turn on, tune in, download.
    zane@mvps.org

  10. #130
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: App Object (fixes)

    On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:04:40 +0100, "David Bayley"
    <dbayley@spamless.aebacus.com> wrote:

    >Seriously, there is a contradiction in your attitude to OO. On the one
    >hand, you appreciate using OO components from 3rd-parties, and on the
    >other hand, you see no benefit in structuring your own code as
    >components?


    Maybe I'm lucky, but that's what works for me. Ideally I would have no
    code at all, only components and configuration operatives. Ideally I
    would use variants all of the time for the little code still
    necessary, and let the computer do work for *me*, rather than the
    other way round. I view the procedural way as giving almost complete
    freedom, while still enabling modularisation through subs, functions,
    and .bas modules (in BASIC; in other languages, using similar
    compartmentalisation methods). I see OOP as too constricting *for my
    kind of work*. I don't remember ever saying that I reject OOP out of
    hand in every programming situation. For 'closed' object models, OOP
    may well be the best design approach overall. I'll never forget some
    adage I read somewhere: "With OOP you have to know everything in order
    to do anything." Whenever I have dabbled in OOP I have found this to
    be exactly true. The way every .Netizen says the effort in .Net lies
    in learning the framework tends to reinforce that as well.

    Also, the fact that over the years hundreds of thousands of non-OOP
    apps have been produced in many different computer languages for a
    diverse collection of computers, platforms, types of business, and
    kinds of user - from the most erudite, scientific university
    professor to the humble office slave -- confirms in my mind that
    there is still absolutely nothing "wrong* with the procedural
    approach. If there *is* nothing wrong with it, why not use it?

    MM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center