RE: A Rusty Conundrum and Rustic Thoughts about Web Servers
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The idea behind object oriented programming is really reuse, not necessarily because it makes for more efficient code. This is good perhaps if you are developing large software projects or libraries but for smaller projects, good object oriented programming is more trouble than it is worth.
I prefer simplicity and still love the "old-fashioned" CGI scripting approach. It isn't the most scalable of course but I love how straightforward the concept is.
0
0
0.000
I think that OOP became a confused paradigm. Every company wanted to use the term "object" in their marketing literature, but they all used the term in different ways.
A notable example is that people started calling the "class structure" in C with Classes an "object."
From a design perspective, I simply saw object-oriented as a way of grouping programs and associated data.
I didn't write many C programs that interfaced with CGI. PHP, of course, was a scripting language that streamlined the interface with CGI and was sufficient for most tasks. CGI is quite close to what needs to be done.
Well, a class is what you use to instantiate an object so if you are writing code with classes then you must at least be creating objects. Whether or not it's good object oriented design or not is another matter entirely.
The great thing about CGI is that you can really use any language at all. C was common and so were shell scripts. I even used Java once for fun. PHP and sevlets and virtually everything since containerized things so that you didn't have to instantiate a new process each time a call was made which definitely makes things more efficient and scalable from an executable standpoint but a lot of programming complexity was added along the way as well. Or at least I thought things became less intuitive.