What is the difference between Procedural and OO programming?

Introduction

Your code is not OO, it is procedural

The ONLY differences between Procedural and OO

Encapsulation

Inheritance

Polymorphism

Abstraction is not a separate concept

They are the same except for ....

Not all OO code is good code

Conclusion

References

Amendment History

Comments

Introduction

I often read blogs about OOP in which various people discuss the merits of one theory/principle/pattern over another, or even how a particular theory/principle/pattern could be implemented, and there is one form of criticism which is becoming more and more prevalent:

If you don't do things the way that I tell you then your code is not OO, it is procedural.

When said in that way the words "your code is procedural", are a form of insult. They are saying that even though your code may be using objects, because you are not using them in the "proper" manner then it is not "true" OO code, it is procedural code which is pretending to be OO.

I consider this attitude to be a pile of bovine excrement, and in the following paragraphs I shall explain why.

Your code is not OO, it is procedural

Here are some of the criticism which I have found:

In Inheritance Is a Procedural Technique for Code Reuse the author says the following:

Inheritance is bad because it is a procedural technique for code reuse. .... That's why it doesn't fit into object-oriented programming.

Rubbish! Inheritance is one of the three characteristics which differentiates OO programming from no-OO programming, so saying that it doesn't fit into OOP just shows that you have lost the plot. Inheritance CANNOT be a procedural technique as it never existed in any procedural languages.

In Are You Still Debugging? the author says the following:

Code is procedural when it is all about how the goal should be achieved instead of what the goal is.

Rubbish. What you are describing here is the difference between imperative programming, which describes how the result should be achieved, and declarative programming, which describes what the program should accomplish. These concepts are entirely different from and unrelated to the procedural and object oriented paradigms. For an example of declarative programming you need look no further that the $fieldspec array that exists in every database table class and which describes that table's structure. This defines the rules that should be followed when any user input needs to be validated before being written to the database, but it does not execute those rules. The code which actually performs this validation can be found in a single validation object which is provided as part of the framework.

In the same article he also said:

A method is procedural if the name is centered around a verb, but OO if it is centered around a noun.

Rubbish. The dictionary definition of method is "a way of doing something", so the "doing" part should immediately signify that it is a verb. Each class in the business/domain layer is built around something which has properties (data) and methods (operations), so the "thing" part should immediately signify a noun. Classes are therefore nouns while methods are therefore verbs. The only exception would be where the object in question is not an entity (which has state) but a service (which is stateless). A service could be a transformer which transforms raw data into a particular format, such as HTML or PDF; it could be a parser, or a validator. In this case the class name would be an adjective while the methods are still verbs.

In this post a person called Fasda said the following:

The key you need to focus is THE WAY YOU THINK A SOLUTION.
In procedural you thinks solutions as writing a recipe, step by step. First do that, then that, and continue with...
In OO you think solutions as "people asking favors to others" -> Objects and Messages only.

I have already stated in a previous article that OOP is not about the passing of messages. The way that an object method is called is exactly the same as how a procedural function is called - it is always synchronous. In a true messaging system the activity requires the use of separate sendMessage() and receiveMessage() functions, and may be either synchronous or asynchronous.

In the same post he also said the following:

Try to use some pure OO language to stop thinking on IF, WHILE, FOR and all those keywords so common in procedural.

In If-Then-Else Is a Code Smell the author says the following:

In most cases (maybe even in all of them), if-then-else can and must be replaced by a decorator or simply another object.

The idea that you cannot use IF, WHILE, FOR, etc in an OO program is too ridiculous for words. Where have the alternatives for these constructs been documented? Do they even exist?

Fortunately there are some sane people out there who do not go along with this idea. In his article Pragmatic OOP Ricki Sickenger had this to say:

I have met programmers who believe that anywhere there is a conditional statement in OO code, there is cause to subclass, "because that is the OO way!". And they will defend it against any pragmatic reasoning. So anywhere you see an if/then/else or a switch statement, you should find a way to break the logic into separate objects to avoid the logic. The dogma here is that conditional statements complicate things and are not strictly OO, so they must be minimized and preferable erased.

In this post a person called Goop said the following:

What you fail to realize is that scripting the flow of control in order to solve problems is absolutely anathema to OOP.

Then how does control flow from one group of instructions in an object method to another? Do you just write a number of methods and let the machine decide in what order they should be executed? Do you construct a mass of ravioli code and throw it into the air and let control flow from one piece of pasta to another in a random sequence? If scripting the flow of control is not "proper" in OOP then can you explain how the Template Method Pattern is in the list of design patterns?

The worst idea of all came from Getters/Setters. Evil. Period. in which David West wrote:

Step one in the transformation of a successful procedural developer into a successful object developer is a lobotomy.

This tells me that OO programmers are just like procedural programmers, but with part of their brains removed.

The ONLY differences between Procedural and OO

While there are some features which are common to both the procedural and OO paradigms, there are some which only exist in OO languages and MUST be present in order to allow a language to be called Object Oriented. These features are Encapsulation, Inheritance and Polymorphism. Although many optional extras have been added since OO languages became popular, I consider them to be nothing more than embellishments which, depending on your point of view, are either Gilding the Lilly or Gilding the Turd.

However, it should be noted that simply having different features is not good enough. Neither programmers nor their employers will switch to using a different language unless there is some benefit in doing so. The supposed benefit of OOP, as I have previously stated here, is that it "increases code reuse and decreases code maintenance". I say "supposed" for the simple reason that far too many programmers are following a corrupted set of "rules" which cause them to fail to meet this simple objective.

Encapsulation

OO languages have the following characteristics:

• You define classes which are the containers for both behaviour (operations or methods) and state (data or properties).
• A method name must be unique within the object.
• A class can contain any number of methods.
• A class must be instantiated into an object before you can call any of its methods.
• A class can be instantiated into several objects, each of which can have its own state.
• A method can access an instance variable (the object's state) by using the keyword $this->
• After an object has been instantiated you can call any number of its methods, and its state will persist in memory until it is destroyed.

This is demonstrated in the following example:

$object1 = new foobar;
$object2 = new foobar;
$result1 = $object1->method1(...);
$result2 = $object1->method2(...);
$result3 = $object1->method3(...);
unset($object1);
$result1 = $object2->method1(...);
$result2 = $object2->method2(...);
$result3 = $object2->method3(...);
unset($object2);

Here you can see that each object is available for method calls between its instantiation (using the "new" keyword) and its destruction (using the "unset" keyword).

Procedural languages have the following characteristics:

• You define functions which contain behaviour but not state.
• A function name must be unique within the application.
• Each function is separate from other functions.
• A function does not have to be instantiated before it can be used.
• A function only ever has a single instance.
• A function only has access to local variables, not instance variables.
• After a function returns its result any data in memory which it may have allocated is lost.

This is demonstrated in the following example:

$result1 = function1(...);
$result2 = function2(...);
$result3 = function3(...);

Inheritance

In order to make use of the code sharing technique called inheritance you must first define the properties and methods which are to be inherited. This is called an abstract class. Then you can create any number of concrete classes which merge this definition with more specific details. This is where the unknown database table is transformed into a specific database table.

Note that there is no limit on the number of times which an abstract superclass can be inherited by a concrete subclass. In my own application I currently have over 450 database tables, so that is 450 cases of inheritance.

Procedural languages do not have inheritance. There is no way in which the code in one function can be merged with additional code to form another function. You can call another function, but you cannot share or modify its contents.

Polymorphism

To take advantage of polymorphism you must have code which calls one or more methods on an object, but where the identity of the object is not known. In this way you can reuse this code with a different object and it will produce different results. Here is an example of such code:

script: std.enquire1.inc
<?php
....
include "$table.class.inc";
$object = new $table;
$data = $object->getData($where);
....
?>

All that is required is a mechanism to supply the contents of $table. This can be done using a number of scripts constructed like the following:

script: foobar(enq1).php
<?php
$table = 'foobar'
include 'std.enquire.inc';
?>

script: snafu(enq1).php
<?php
$table = 'snafu'
include 'std.enquire.inc';
?>

As you should be able to see, if I have a separate one of these scripts for each database table, and I have 450 tables, it means that I can reuse the contents of std.enquire1.inc 450 times. This is possible because all my page controllers, of which std.enquire1.inc is just a small sample, use only those methods which were defined in the abstract class, which means that they can be used with anything which inherits from this class.

Procedural languages do not have polymorphism. Each function exists only once, therefore there cannot be more than one implementation with the same name, so it is not possible to swap one implementation with another.

Abstraction is not a separate concept

Some people seem to think that OO has four parts, with the fourth being "abstraction", but I disagree. For something to be either an essential part or a distinguishing feature of a programming paradigm then you MUST be able demonstrate its existence using code samples, but I have only seen such samples for the following:

1. Encapsulation - uses the keyword "class" as a container (or capsule) for a series of related properties (variables) and methods (functions). A class can be instantiated into an object using the keyword "new" after which any of the methods in that object can be called.
2. Inheritance - uses the keyword "extends" to automatically make available in a subclass all the properties and methods which were defined in the superclass.
3. Polymorphism - allows the developer to define the same function name in several classes. This is not possible in procedural languages as each function/procedure name must be unique within the entire program.

Unless you can show me how to create this thing called "abstraction" using a code sample then, in my humble opinion, the whole idea can be disregarded as an illusion because it has no substance. The PHP manual does not have any keyword to perform an abstraction, so what exactly does it mean? After performing a search on the interweb thingy I found many descriptions, but nothing good enough to be called a "definition" which could explain the concept to a novice in simple and unambiguous terms. In a separate article called The meaning of "abstraction", which I wrote after discovering Designing Reusable Classes by Ralph E. Johnson & Brian Foote, I reveal how it is actually both a verb (process) and a noun (entity) which produces a result in two forms:

• Functional Abstraction results in shared methods, which are best stored in an abstract class, as shown in set of common methods.
• Data Abstraction results in shared variables, as shown in common properties, which can be inherited from the same abstract class and where each concrete class provides different values.

The process of abstraction means to separate the abstract from the concrete, the general from the specific. You examine a group of objects looking for both similarities and differences. The similarities can be shared by all members of that group while the differences are unique to individual members. This is a mental process which identifies abstractions but does not implement them, therefore it cannot be classed as a distinguishing feature of OOP. The result of this process could then be an abstract superclass containing the shared characteristics and a separate concrete subclass to contain the differences for each unique instance. It is this method of implementing an abstraction which is unique to OOP and therefore a distinguishing feature of OOP.

If you look at a number of database tables you should note these similarities or common characteristics:

• Every table has a name, but each table has a different name.
• Every table has a structure, a collection of columns with different names, datatypes and sizes, but each table has a different structure.
• Every table has a primary key, but each table has a different primary key.
• Every table may have additional unique (candidate) keys, but each table has different candidate keys.
• Every table may have zero or more relationships with other tables, but each table has different relationships.
• Every table, regardless of its structure, can only be manipulated using the same CRUD operations to act upon rows in that table.

In order to turn an abstract class into a concrete class you need to provide the missing details:

• The table name as well as the name of the database in which it resides..
• The table's structure - a list of column names and their data types, taken from the DDL script.
• The name(s) of the column(s) which identify its primary key.
• The name(s) of the column(s) which identify any candidate keys.
• The identity of any tables which are the parents in parent-to-child relationships.
• The identity of any tables which are the children in parent-to-child relationships.

The use of an abstract class means that it then becomes possible to make use of the Template Method Pattern to contain all common code in its invariant methods while the variable/customisable methods are defined separately in each subclass.

Note also that each table can contain any number of rows of data where each row has its own collection of values. While some columns may contain identical values each unique primary key will be unique. Each class should therefore contain properties for this data using one of the following choices:

• A separate property for each column. This is the most common approach, but it produces tight coupling.
• A single array to hold as much data as is necessary for the current operation. This may be an associative array for a single row, or an indexed array of associative arrays for multiple rows. This is a less common approach, but it has the benefit of producing loose coupling. It also allows for any mixture of columns, including those which do not actually exist on the table, just as from a JOIN to a parent table.

They are the same except for ....

When people say that OO programming is completely different from procedural programming and it requires a totally different way of thinking I'm afraid that they are completely wrong. Yes, there are differences, but there are also similarities. The differences are not concerned with the code that you write to do stuff, but only how that code is packaged. With Procedural languages you can package your code into functions, procedures or subprograms, but with OO languages you can package your code into classes and methods. The use of classes then allows for inheritance where a subclass can share code from its superclass. In Procedural languages all function/procedure/subprogram names must be unique, whereas in OO languages the same method name may exist in multiple classes, thus providing opportunities for polymorphism. Inheritance and Polymorphism are techniques for reusing code that are not available in Procedural languages, and this simple observation leads me to make the following statement:

Object Oriented programming is exactly the same as Procedural programming except for the addition of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. They are both designed around the idea of writing imperative statements which are executed in a linear fashion. The commands are the same, it is only the way they are packaged which is different. While both allow the developer to write modular instead of monolithic programs, OOP provides the opportunity to write better modules.

I am not the only one who shares this opinion. In his article All evidence points to OOP being bullshit John Barker says the following:

Procedural programming languages are designed around the idea of enumerating the steps required to complete a task. OOP languages are the same in that they are imperative - they are still essentially about giving the computer a sequence of commands to execute. What OOP introduces are abstractions that attempt to improve code sharing and security. In many ways it is still essentially procedural code.

In his paper Encapsulation as a First Principle of Object-Oriented Design (PDF) the author Scott L. Bain wrote the following:

Object Orientation (OO) addresses as its primary concern those things which influence the rate of success for the developer or team of developers: how easy is it to understand and implement a design, how extensible (and understandable) an existing code set is, how much pain one has to go through to find and fix a bug, add a new feature, change an existing feature, and so forth. Beyond simple "buzzword compliance", most end users and stakeholders are not concerned with whether or not a system is designed in an OO language or using good OO techniques. They are concerned with the end result of the process - it is the development team that enjoys the direct benefits that come from using OO.

This should not surprise us, since OO is routed in those best-practice principles that arose from the wise dons of procedural programming. The three pillars of "good code", namely strong cohesion, loose coupling and the elimination of redundancies, were not discovered by the inventors of OO, but were rather inherited by them (no pun intended).

Cohesion is the degree to which the responsibilities of a single module/component form a meaningful unit. High cohesion is considered to be better than low cohesion.

Coupling is the degree of interaction between two modules. Whenever you have one module calling another you have coupling. Loose coupling is considered to be better than tight coupling as it reduces the Ripple Effect when a change to one module requires corresponding changes to other modules.

Elimination of redundancies is aimed at removing code that you do not need (refer to the YAGNI principle) as well as code that is duplicated (refer to the DRY principle).

Other best practices which evolved in procedural languages, but which are still relevant in the OO world, are the KISS and If it ain't broke don't fix it principles.

Here is a summary of the similarities and differences:

• OOP is not about encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism on their own, but in addition to the principles and best practices which had arisen from procedural programming, which includes modular programming and structured programming as taught, for example, by Michael M Jackson.
• OOP is supported by languages which enable encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism in addition to the functionality that can be found in procedural languages, which includes expressions, operators, control structures, built-in functions and user-defined functions. When lines of code are executed they are still processed in a linear fashion. The CPU cannot tell the difference between OO code and procedural code, so both are executed in exactly the same way, one instruction after another.
• OOP is not about the code that you write to do stuff, it is about how that code is packaged. In procedural languages the data and the code are defined separately while in OO languages the data and the operations which can be performed on that data are defined in the same class or "capsule" (hence the term encapsulation). In procedural languages all function names must be unique while in OO languages method names need only be unique within a class. The use of classes and objects then provides inheritance and polymorphism.
• OOP is supposed to make the programmer's job of writing "good code" easier, and that it should be more cost-effective than when using previous non-OO languages. To be more cost-effective a programmer needs to expend less effort to achieve a given task, and less effort comes from more reusability as the more code you can reuse the less code you have to write. As a user of several non-OO languages I therefore expect OOP to provide more reusability, and I will object most strongly if it does not.

This also tells me that OOP can be adequately supported in procedural languages (such as PHP and COBOL) which have had the necessary syntax added in to enable encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism without replacing the original syntax with something which is more OO-like. For example, if a procedural language allows a statement such as $result = uppercase($string) it would seem to be overkill to replace it with $result = $string->uppercase(). The result is exactly the same, but a lot of effort has been expended just to do it differently.

OO theory is constantly being expanded to include more and more concepts, and these concepts are becoming more and more complicated. As languages are modified to include these add-on concepts newcomers to these languages become convinced that it is these add-ons which define what OO is. I totally disagree. OOP does not require the use of any of these optional extras, so it is wrong to say that a program is not OO simply because it does not use them. It would be like saying that a car is not a car unless it has climate control and satnav. Those are optional extras, not the distinguishing features, and not having them does not make your car not a car. It would also be incorrect to say that a car is a car because it has wheels. Having wheels does not make something a car - a pram has wheels, but that does not make it a car, so having wheels is not a distinguishing feature.

Not all OO code is good code

There seems to be a theory among OO programmers that all OO code is superior to procedural code by virtue of the fact that it is OO. In theory they should be correct, but in practice they are not. Just as it is possible to produce spaghetti code (unstructured branching using GOTO) in a procedural language it is also possible to produce ravioli code (too many small classes) or lasagne code (too many layers) in an OO language. Using the features that the language provides will not guarantee "good" code, it is how you make use of those features which is the deciding factor.

It is possible to write the same program in both a procedural style and an OO style, and for the results to be identical. If both have the same UI then it will not be possible for the user to identify which programming style was used. Does this make it an example of "implementation hiding"? This simple observation proves that the underlying code which "does stuff" is more or less the same, but it is only how this code is packaged which is different. When dealing with classes and objects there are four important questions to answer:

• What types of object should I create?
• How many objects should I create?
• What structure should I use?
• How much reusability should I have?

If you create too many objects, especially non-reusable objects, in a structure that is more complicated than it need be, then you may end up by actually being less productive than you could be. Your code may be more difficult to read and understand and therefore more difficult to maintain, which then totally negates the benefits of using OOP in the first place. If you cannot use the facilities that OO languages provide and create cost-effective software, and more importantly, software that is more cost effective than what can be produced using non-OO languages, then as far as I am concerned you have failed. Those OO features were added to languages in order to provide certain benefits, and if your work does not show those benefits then as far as I am concerned you are doing it wrong.

Conclusion

Anybody who says that OO programming is totally different from its procedural predecessors has been seriously misinformed. It is in fact exactly the same except for some minor differences. The code that you write to "do stuff" is fundamentally identical, with the only exception being how it is packaged. In procedural languages you wrap your code in plain functions, but with OO languages you wrap both code (methods) and data (properties) into capsules called classes. The act of encapsulation provides new ways of sharing and reusing code - inheritance and polymorphism. It is this ability to provide an increase in reusability and therefore maintainability which is supposed to give OOP the edge over its procedural predecessors, but too many programmers think that there is some sort of magic involved in OOP and invent weird sets of rules which, if not followed to their satisfaction, causes them to brand your code with what they regard as the ultimate insult - "That's not proper OO, that's procedural".

Do not think for one minute that you cannot possibly be wrong because you are following all the rules set by the programming elite. Far too many of these "rules" were created by pseudo-intellectuals whose purpose was to show how clever they are rather than providing simple solutions to complex problems. They spend so much time in nit-picking, pedantic arguments over their extreme and often perverse interpretations of various programming principles that they lose sight of the big picture. They concentrate too much on how the results should be achieved instead of what the results should be. If you don't belive me I suggest you take a look at the following:

• Your code is crap!
• On not using the "right" standards
• Your rules are RUBBISH!

As far as I am concerned the only difference between OO and procedural programming is that the former has encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism while the latter does not. Remember that strong cohesion, loose coupling and the elimination of redundancies are concepts which are common to both paradigms. In order to be a competent OO programmer a person has to do no more than use the commonalities and leverage the differences to create cost-effective software which is easier to write and also easier to maintain. This is achieved by having more reusable code, and the correct application of inheritance and polymorphism can provide opportunities for code reuse which are simply not available in non-OO languages. The more code you have which is reusable the less code you have to write, and the less code you have to write then the less code you have to maintain. It is the result you obtain from using those concepts which is the deciding factor, not how you use them. It would be like saying that a footballer who puts the ball in the back of the net does not actually score a goal unless he kicks the ball properly, where "properly" means different things to different people. Just because a footballer kicks the ball "properly" does not guarantee that it will actually go into the back of the net, and a kick which does not score a goal cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classed as a success. It is substance that counts, not style. It is results that count, not rule-following.

References

• Inheritance Is a Procedural Technique for Code Reuse by Yegor Bugayenko
• Are You Still Debugging? by Yegor Bugayenko
• If-Then-Else Is a Code Smell by Yegor Bugayenko
• Getters/Setters. Evil. Period. by Yegor Bugayenko
• Seven Virtues of a Good Object by Yegor Bugayenko
• Don't Create Objects That End With -ER by Yegor Bugayenko
• Pragmatic OOP by Ricki Sickenger
• All evidence points to OOP being bullshit by John Barker
• Encapsulation as a First Principle of Object-Oriented Design (PDF) by Scott L. Bain

The following articles describe aspects of my framework:

• User Guide to the Menu and Security (RBAC) System
• User Guide to the Audit Logging System
• User Guide to the Workflow System
• User Guide to the Data Dictionary

• RADICORE - A Development Infrastructure for PHP
• Transaction Patterns for Web Applications
• Reusable XSL Stylesheets and Templates
• The Model-View-Controller (MVC) Design Pattern for PHP
• A Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system for PHP
• FAQ on the Radicore Development Infrastructure
• Creating an Audit Log with an online viewing facility
• An activity based Workflow Engine for PHP
• UML diagrams for the Radicore Development Infrastructure
• A Data Dictionary for PHP Applications
• Internationalisation and the Radicore Development Infrastructure (Part 1)
• Internationalisation and the Radicore Development Infrastructure (Part 2)
• RADICORE for PHP - Functions, Methods and Variables
• The RADICORE Security Model
• RADICORE for PHP - creating PDF output
• What is a framework?
• What is the 3-Tier Architecture?
• Blockchain for Blockheads
• Anatomy of an Enterprise Application
• The Template Method Pattern as a Framework
• How Radicore's Hook System Works
• Evolution of the RADICORE framework

The following articles express my heretical views on the topic of OOP:

• Design Patterns - a personal perspective
• Object-Oriented Programming for Heretics
• Development Standards - Limitation or Inspiration?
• Design Patterns are dead! Long live Transaction Patterns!
• What is Object Oriented Programming (OOP)?
• Not the three greatest paragraphs ever written on encapsulation
• Table Oriented Programming (TOP)
• A minimalist approach to Object Oriented Programming with PHP
• Using object composition for "has-a" relationships is not such a good idea
• OO Design is incompatible with Database Design
• How NOT to Validate Data
• Object Oriented Database Programming
• Let's Make It More Complicated Than It Really Is Just To Prove How Clever We Are
• The difference between an interface and an abstract class
• Having a separate class for each database table *IS* good OO
• Why I don't do Domain Driven Design
• The concept is OK but your implementation is not
• Re: Objects should be constructed in one go
• Re: What's so great about OOP?
• To There and Back - but still in the wrong place
• Re: Exceptions and talking back to the user
• Are you achieving the aims of OOP?
• RE: Improving PHP's Object Ergonomics
• Pop Quiz on OOP
• RE: The purpose of inheritance is code reuse
• Fat Model, Skinny Controller
• How to decouple business logic from UI logic
• From Oop to Poop, from Excellent to Excrement
• The database is NOT just an implementation detail
• The meaning of "abstraction"
• Active Record: Getting it Right
• How to Produce a Rich Domain Model with Active Record

These are reasons why I consider some ideas on how to do OOP "properly" to be complete rubbish:

• Case Sensitive Software is EVIL
• Software Patents are EVIL
• Stored Procedures are EVIL
• Object Relational Mappers are EVIL
• Dependency Injection is EVIL
• Not-so-SOLID OO Principles
• I fail to GRASP these principles
• Singletons are NOT evil
• Getters and Setters are EVIL
• Object Interfaces are EVIL
• Object Associations are EVIL
• Inheritance is NOT evil
• Namespaces are for numpties
• The case against static typing in PHP
• The case against overloading in PHP
• Attributes are atrocious
• Autoloaders are abominations
• Composition is a procedural technique for code reuse
• Decoupling is delusional
• Strict typing is for stick-in-the-muds
• Value objects are worthless

Here are my views on changes to the PHP language and Backwards Compatibility:

• Breaking Backwards Compatibility is EVIL
• Please do not break our language
• BC break in 7.2 caused by undocumented and unauthorised change
• Changing fundamental language behaviors
• Is PHP too verbose?
• RE: Improving PHP's Object Ergonomics
• The PHP core developers are lazy, incompetent idiots
• Is there a case for adding namespaces to PHP core?
• The case against static typing in PHP
• The case against function overloading in PHP

The following are responses to criticisms of my methods:

• What is/is not considered to be good OO programming
• In the world of OOP am I Hero or Heretic?
• Your code is crap!
• On not using the "right" standards
• Your rules are RUBBISH!
• Response to personal attack on reddit.com

Here are some miscellaneous articles:

• Component Design - Large and Complex vs. Small and Simple
• How to handle a Many-to-Many relationship with PHP and MySQL
• A class for validating and formatting dates
• Customising the PHP error handler
• Technical Keys - Their Uses and Abuses
• Pagination - what it is and how to do it
• The Relational Data Model, Normalisation and effective Database Design
• Development Standards - Limitation or Inspiration?
• Saving PHP's Session data to a database
• Are you a Code Monkey?
• The Singleton Design Pattern for PHP
• Working with a stateless protocol
• A flexible method of storing control data
• Web Site vs Web Application
• Using Radicore components in a front-end website
• An end-to-end eCommerce solution requires more than a fancy website
• Database Design - are you Novice, Ninja or Nincompoop?
• Why you should build your web application back-to-front
• Why PHP is not suitable for enterprise grade web applications

Amendment History