<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PHP &#8211; From Procedural to Object Oriented</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metrol.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/php-from-procedural-to-object-oriented/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metrol.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/php-from-procedural-to-object-oriented/</link>
	<description>A little corner of the web for Metrol rants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:36:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PHP - From Procedural to Object Oriented</title>
		<link>http://metrol.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/php-from-procedural-to-object-oriented/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>PHP - From Procedural to Object Oriented</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metrol.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/php-from-procedural-to-object-oriented/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>[...] http://fmpub.net/contact.php?to=jb wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI hated the notion of Object Oriented (OO) programming. I&#8217;d been using PHP since early version 3, and I had put together some very usable web sites with it. Every book I read on the topic seemed to be rich with metaphors about dogs, cars, and various other things, but not much on why I would want to abandon my happy procedural methods. Not that these authors didn&#8217;t try. The arguments they made just didn&#8217;t hit home with me at the time. I think I may now understand why this was. Most of the efforts I&#8217;ve seen to describe object oriented design are coming from the perspective of someone who thinks in an OO way. I&#8217;m not saying this was a bad approach, it just really didn&#8217;t work for me. Perhaps if I hadn&#8217;t been so deeply entrenched in the methodologies I had been using for years I would have been [&#8230;] [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://fmpub.net/contact.php?to=jb" rel="nofollow">http://fmpub.net/contact.php?to=jb</a> wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI hated the notion of Object Oriented (OO) programming. I&#8217;d been using PHP since early version 3, and I had put together some very usable web sites with it. Every book I read on the topic seemed to be rich with metaphors about dogs, cars, and various other things, but not much on why I would want to abandon my happy procedural methods. Not that these authors didn&#8217;t try. The arguments they made just didn&#8217;t hit home with me at the time. I think I may now understand why this was. Most of the efforts I&#8217;ve seen to describe object oriented design are coming from the perspective of someone who thinks in an OO way. I&#8217;m not saying this was a bad approach, it just really didn&#8217;t work for me. Perhaps if I hadn&#8217;t been so deeply entrenched in the methodologies I had been using for years I would have been [&#8230;] [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
