Overhead for the PLO - page 7

New comment
 

Let's see how embarrassed you are, all your quotes:

  • Of course the beauties of OOP have to be paid for with resources and a lot of debugging time.

    "Crookedness" shows that you have no idea about the technology.
    "Greater debugging costs" is exactly the opposite. Hundreds and thousands of times faster debugging.

  • OOP only makes sense as a handy text wrapper or when used minimally during runtime initialization...

    Word rubbish.

  • In fact, OOP was purely a marketing thing from Microsoft to increase the cost of programmers' working hours and stimulate the purchase of more advanced hardware.

    At this point, everything became clear. The person is so far removed from programming that there is no point in listening any further.

  • And they are not fools themselves and write all the software in C and assembler.

    Wow...


All this happened instantly in your first comment.

So, you're not a programmer and there's nothing for you to do in this thread. At most you can pass for a troll.

 

Perhaps we could thoroughly investigate your statement about modern C++ compilers in the context of this thread as well as my argumentation concerning all the points you consider erroneous and groundless, but unfortunately I have a vague premonition, that a civilized and reasoned discussion is unlikely to succeed because of the initial labeling of the opponents in the discussion, the imaginary question of experience and other factors of inequality which have little to do with argumentation and finding out the truth about some point under discussion.

 

It's strange... You say that "modularity and declarativity" are the main reasons for increasing development efficiency, but it is OOP that represents the most developed means for providing just modularity and declarativity. In "purely procedural style" it is much sadder with these things.

 
Andrei:
You are even worse than Konov, at least he has a good grasp of procedural programming. Your "arguments" are random quotations of famous opponents of OOP, even without context, mixed with the mush you generate. What is there to discuss with you?
 
Комбинатор:
You are even worse than Konov, at least he has a good grasp of procedural programming. Your "arguments" are random quotations of famous opponents of OOP, even without context, mixed with the mush you generate. What is there to discuss with you?
Can you knit a meaningful phrase to make it clear what exactly the claim is?
 
Andrei:
Do you knit a meaningful phrase to make it clear what exactly the complaint is about?
you are incompetent in the topic of discussion. is that clearer?
 
Комбинатор:
You're incompetent on the subject. Is that clearer?
Will there be proof?
 
Andrei:
Will there be proof?
It is not required, it is obvious
1234567
New comment