Questions on OOP in MQL5 - page 26

[Alexey Navoykov]

Igor Makanu:

The IT giants support this paradigm, perhaps it is advantageous to force software developers to make complex implementations that will require more powerful hardware to run, as well as to present their documentation to OS or compilers with ready-made libraries in the form of OOP, which forces developers .... and so on to infinity ;)

I think everything is much simpler. The popular things are always more simple and understandable for most people. Take for example the example of the incredible popularity of Python, which is in fact a language for dummies.If you ask a question "How to learn programming, Python is suggested nearly everywhere ) An experienced programmer accustomed to the rigor and control of a compiler is unlikely to change over to it ) But the abundance of Python users forces developers to adapt to them )

[Igor Makanu]

Alexey Navoykov:

This is a kind of conspiracy.)

It's not conspiracy, it's life experience, I've long been convinced that even in companies there are disgustingly constructed technological cycles, which are both labour-intensive and time-consuming... but if you do it right and save time and resources, you won't make a profit! - this is especially true when there is work with subscribers - I've had experience in cellular services

And now, through this "prism of knowledge", I am trying to see why something is thought out through the .omph, but in general, that's how it works and will work for a long time to come

I may be wrong with OOP, but there is certainly inefficiency, as there is, that this has worked for a long time and will work for a long time.... Maybe the code should be more authentic for Indians or not every customer could read the source code? - well in general you may think for a long time why OOP is so popular but causes such criticism

)))

[Aliaksandr Hryshyn]

The article looks more like a story. It reminds me of Grobovoy where there are a lot of words but nothing of substance. Ungrounded statements.

"What's the point...?" - I naively thought while leafing through the article that I had reached the main point, but, again, a bunch of idle chatter that OOP is bad here, bad there, while functional programming is all good.

How do you read such things?

The idea itself may be interesting.

[Alexey Navoykov]

Aliaksandr Hryshyn:
...where there are a lot of words but no substance. Unsubstantiated statements.

Which statements in particular are unfounded?

[Vladimir Simakov]

IMHO of course. But it seems to me that the problem of OOP is not in OOP itself, but, as always, in people. Give a shit-coder a pluses-based task and he'll happily kill it, while in Sharp he may well represent a working solution, thanks to google help. But what kind of intricate combinations of other people's code snippets into one (we remember about google help Mi) will result, it is a matter of luck. As a result, it seems to work, but it's better not to change something there...

[Aliaksandr Hryshyn]

Alexey Navoykov:

Which statements in particular are unfounded?

1. OOP cannot cope with the complexity of procedural bases.(Windows and other complex software somehow works).

2. OOP was designed without good research(OOP was taken from the ceiling, but this is what one wanted to do).

3. OOP is not natural for the human brain(it is wrong to say so categorically, was it better before?)

.....

This is too much, without even getting into the details.

[Vasiliy Sokolov]

Proponents of FP consciously forget that their lambda calculus is executed by a Turing machine, with a finite number of states and transitions between them, i.e. the same counters, branching and goto instructions are used. So to claim that FP provides something more than classical language like C, C#, Java can provide is at least incorrect.

[Igor Makanu]

which day in youtube in the recommended reviews of retro games under DOS for some reason, for a long time I do not play, but sometimes look here today in the recommendedhttps://youtu.be/edJPKwpeHh4

So what came to my mind, let's take something that was done by hand (without some gamestudio, etc.) and was done really well and really didn't slow down and really ... well, a legend.

all that comes to mind, in my opinion is Quake-1, he even on the 486 flew and was as cleverly done, and on its new engines like a whole line of games was then made

what is Quake-1 written on - who's seen or read it?

[Vasiliy Sokolov]

Igor Makanu:

which day in youtube in the recommended reviews of retro games under DOS for some reason, for a long time I do not play, but sometimes look here today in the recommended https://youtu.be/edJPKwpeHh4

So what came to my mind, let's take something that was done by hand (without some gamestudio, etc.) and was done really well and really didn't slow down and really ... well, a legend.

all that comes to mind, in my opinion is Quake-1, he even on the 486 flew and was as cleverly done, and on its new engines like a whole line of games was then made

What's Quake-1 written on - who's seen or read it?

I don't know about Quake, but here's a great review of Duke Nukem 3D: https://habr.com/ru/post/323426/

[Igor Makanu]

Vasiliy Sokolov:

I don't know about Quake, but here's a great review of the raw materials on Duke Nukem 3D: https://habr.com/ru/post/323426/

Read up to the middle, no indication that Duke Nukem - not only that at a young age I do not like it somehow "went away" ))), so in the article:

Looking at the endless number of ports spawned by Doom/Quake, I always wondered why there are so few Duke Nukem 3D ports. The same question arose when the engine was only ported to OpenGL after Ken Silverman decided to do it himself.

Yes, and in the beginning of the article, if I understood correctly, the developer of the engine was 18 years old, age is not a vice, but . in my opinion it should not be about some systematic application of knowledge

i'll go to the hbr, there are really interesting reviews of primary sources or translations

ZS: actually here are the sources of retro legendshttps://habr.com/ru/post/137442/