Sounds like someone who doesn't get OO and has decided that he must be right and the rest of the programming world is wrong.
On 8/29/07, Justin Treher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do see his point that trying to map objects to a relational database is > where OOP starts to feel really unnatural. In addition, with the business > objects we deal with, it seems unnatural for them to have behaviors, unlike > a car being able to "start()". > Dealing with relational databases is what ORM was created for. Regarding business objects, if you have objects with no behavior you basically might as well just be using a structure. I would disagree that it is unnatural for the business objects we deal with to have behavior. If objects shouldn't have behavior, where does the actual application logic go? If you don't encapsulate the behavior with the data (in an object) then it just results is spaghetti code all over the place. shipment.determineShippingTime() inventory.adjustInventory(order) contentCache.clear() These seem perfectly natural to me. Basically, even if you don't completely understand or even agree with the idea of OOP, the rest of the world does. Failure to embrace, or at least understand, OOP in this day and age is going to translate to a difficult programming career. You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
