<?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: Why do we need OOP?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tomaszk.com/2006/09/23/why-do-we-need-oop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tomaszk.com/2006/09/23/why-do-we-need-oop/</link>
	<description>Another crappy blog no one reads</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 11:19:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Corvillus</title>
		<link>http://www.tomaszk.com/2006/09/23/why-do-we-need-oop/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Corvillus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Sep 2006 05:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tomaszk.com/2006/09/23/why-do-we-need-oop/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Personally, I think object oriented programming is just the next step up from structured (functional) programming with respect to relating programming to real-world semantics. Structured programming gives you the verbs (functions), and object oriented programming simply throws the nouns (objects) and adjectives (interfaces, properties) into the mix. OOP makes it much easier to map application code to real world objects and behaviours. A well built object oriented application on all except it&#039;s absolute lowest levels reads semantically (and in some languages, such as Ruby, even syntactically) like spoken english. Also, due to the several layers of abstraction a proper OOP infrastructure requires, you can often minimize the locations code needs to be changed, while at the same time having more versatile code (a well built object can often be used outside of the context for which it was originally designed, which is a very efficient form of code reuse).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I think object oriented programming is just the next step up from structured (functional) programming with respect to relating programming to real-world semantics. Structured programming gives you the verbs (functions), and object oriented programming simply throws the nouns (objects) and adjectives (interfaces, properties) into the mix. OOP makes it much easier to map application code to real world objects and behaviours. A well built object oriented application on all except it&#8217;s absolute lowest levels reads semantically (and in some languages, such as Ruby, even syntactically) like spoken english. Also, due to the several layers of abstraction a proper OOP infrastructure requires, you can often minimize the locations code needs to be changed, while at the same time having more versatile code (a well built object can often be used outside of the context for which it was originally designed, which is a very efficient form of code reuse).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.173 seconds -->
