<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking Object-Oriented (2 of 5)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/</link>
	<description>Flex, AIR, PHP, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:17:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Holmen</title>
		<link>http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-1741</link>
		<dc:creator>John Holmen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacwright.com/blog/?p=19#comment-1741</guid>
		<description>But databases can also model the &quot;nouns&quot; of the domain. OOP authors often talk about the valuable addition of behavior that OOP adds, but if one looks at the actual actions needed, their association with the domain nouns is not always one-to-one. The close coupling of the two does not make practical sense. I would like to see clear-cut evidence that OOP is better than procedural in conjunction with a well-designed database. I see no reason to mirror the database entities in the application code as classes. That is extra effort and code that does not need to be there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But databases can also model the &#8220;nouns&#8221; of the domain. OOP authors often talk about the valuable addition of behavior that OOP adds, but if one looks at the actual actions needed, their association with the domain nouns is not always one-to-one. The close coupling of the two does not make practical sense. I would like to see clear-cut evidence that OOP is better than procedural in conjunction with a well-designed database. I see no reason to mirror the database entities in the application code as classes. That is extra effort and code that does not need to be there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Utah PHP Users Group &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Creating objects (4 of 5)</title>
		<link>http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-1204</link>
		<dc:creator>Utah PHP Users Group &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Creating objects (4 of 5)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2006 06:43:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacwright.com/blog/?p=19#comment-1204</guid>
		<description>[...] In the previous three object oriented programming articles written for jacwright.com, we introduced object oriented programming, spoke of thinking about a system object oriented, and discussed the importance of planning, even if only in one&#8217;s head. The next two articles, Creating Objects and Reusing Objects, delve into the meatier subject of writing objects. We will be discussing how to implement the plans we&#8217;ve made and the systems we&#8217;ve conceptualized. Without these principles, object oriented programming can become a mess instead of a blessing. Encapsulate, Encapsulate, Dance to the Music (lyrics) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the previous three object oriented programming articles written for jacwright.com, we introduced object oriented programming, spoke of thinking about a system object oriented, and discussed the importance of planning, even if only in one&#8217;s head. The next two articles, Creating Objects and Reusing Objects, delve into the meatier subject of writing objects. We will be discussing how to implement the plans we&#8217;ve made and the systems we&#8217;ve conceptualized. Without these principles, object oriented programming can become a mess instead of a blessing. Encapsulate, Encapsulate, Dance to the Music (lyrics) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Utah PHP Users Group &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Planning systems (3 of 5)</title>
		<link>http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-1005</link>
		<dc:creator>Utah PHP Users Group &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Planning systems (3 of 5)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacwright.com/blog/?p=19#comment-1005</guid>
		<description>[...] The definition of organize as Google� tells us is �formed into a structured or coherent whole; methodical and efficient in arrangement or function; arranged into definite structures.� We need to know where things are, where they are going to be, and how to find them. We also need to know how they are going to work together. Object-oriented programming is great for this because it give us a way to plan called object-oriented design. I discussed in the previous article Thinking Object-Oriented how we can visualize systems in terms of real-world objects. This is what object-oriented design is aimed at doing. We plan out the system modeling it after the real world. We imagine our ecommerce store is a real store and plan out the system based off of how a real store works. We think of our intranet as it were the company�s actual organization and plan it out into departments with their managers and employees. We are able to plan a system much more easily because we live in the real world (well, most of us anyway) and are familiar with objects, items, things, and stuff in our everyday lives. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The definition of organize as Google� tells us is �formed into a structured or coherent whole; methodical and efficient in arrangement or function; arranged into definite structures.� We need to know where things are, where they are going to be, and how to find them. We also need to know how they are going to work together. Object-oriented programming is great for this because it give us a way to plan called object-oriented design. I discussed in the previous article Thinking Object-Oriented how we can visualize systems in terms of real-world objects. This is what object-oriented design is aimed at doing. We plan out the system modeling it after the real world. We imagine our ecommerce store is a real store and plan out the system based off of how a real store works. We think of our intranet as it were the company�s actual organization and plan it out into departments with their managers and employees. We are able to plan a system much more easily because we live in the real world (well, most of us anyway) and are familiar with objects, items, things, and stuff in our everyday lives. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joshbuhler.com &#187; Intro to OOP</title>
		<link>http://jacwright.com/blog/19/thinking-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>joshbuhler.com &#187; Intro to OOP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacwright.com/blog/?p=19#comment-43</guid>
		<description>[...] Part 2: Thinking Object-Oriented [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Part 2: Thinking Object-Oriented [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
