It goes something like this (re-hashed a little): "Every program of any complexity written in a procedural language will have a [half-assed] implementation of object oriented design."
On Monday 13 December 2004 07:33 pm, projecktzero wrote: > I know this might not be the correct group to post this, but I thought > I'd start here. > > A co-worker considers himself "old school" in that he hasn't seen the > light of OOP.(It might be because he's in love with Perl...but that's > another story.) He thinks that OOP has more overhead and is slower than > programs written the procedural way. I poked around google, but I don't > know the magic words to put in to prove or disprove his assertion. Can > anyone point me toward some resources? > > We do web programming. I suspect that OO apps would behave as good as > procedural apps, and you'd get the benefit of code reuse if you do it > properly. Code reuse now consists of cutting and pasting followed by > enough modification that I wonder if it was worth it to cut and paste > in the first place. > > Thanks. -- James Stroud, Ph.D. UCLA-DOE Institute for Genomics and Proteomics 611 Charles E. Young Dr. S. MBI 205, UCLA 951570 Los Angeles CA 90095-1570 http://www.jamesstroud.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
