From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-08-08T00:30:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Better way to do this? Currently using two method_missing calls...

On 07.08.2007 16:09, Dan wrote:
>> Can you explain why you are reluctant to create an instance for this?
>> Generally, creating and manipulating objects is all OO is about. :-)
>> More specifically, since your remote call is likely an order of
>> magnitude slower than the instance creation performance effects are
>> negligible.
> 
> Fair point :). Actually, I'm less concerned about performance then
> code clarity.  Since I'm just posting to a url, I only want to convert
> the object-like notation to a string. Creating a bunch of objects just
> to facilitate that notation seems like extra confusion.

We're not talking about a "bunch", are we?  The reason I keep stressing 
this point is that more often than not I have seen OO programs make too 
few use of classes than making too much use of classes.  Somehow people 
seem to think a class is something big or heavyweight so it should be 
avoided - or at least kept to a minimum.  IMHO that leads to less 
modularized and more difficult to read code.  Stuffing everything into 
only few classes that have a large number of methods makes things harder 
to understand and reuse than having many classes which focus on only few 
related tasks and that use other classes for unrelated tasks.

Sorry, I *had* to say it at some point in time. :-)

Kind regards

	robert