OOP vs procedural programming - page 21
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You said that the user enables trailing in the external table. Therefore he can only enable one trailing. Then you can use switch instead of if.
Who would read this? What are you doing here?
So describe the mechanism of this decision of yours. I have described it specifically. What you have is incomprehensible. Only words that your solution is more effective. Under what conditions is it more effective? If it is under those conditions I've described, are you saying that your solution is more efficient than the switch operator?
When it comes to anecdotes, you are clearly more verbose than you are in proving your point...
You have clearly shown that:
1. You cannot read.
2. You don't understand what you are arguing here - and that's the most interesting thing. You argue and you don't know what you're arguing about.
Who would read this? What are you doing here?
All the evidence you are capable of is incoherent fragments of phrases, boorishness, jokes and references to things you don't understand...
In short, everything is clear.
All the proof you are capable of is incoherent fragments of phrases, boorishness, jokes and references to incomprehensible things...
Then reread this post again
It has already been explained to you )) Let me try again in your language... You can do without OOP to solve any task, but OOP is convenient, time-saving, more readable, and so on... If the project is large and complex, the effectiveness of OOP is more obvious, if you haven't dealt with large projects, it is harder to understand the point... Be at your own discretion if you feel more comfortable with it
It has already been explained to you )) Let me try again in your language... You can do without OOP to solve any task, but OOP is convenient, time-saving, more readable, and so on... If the project is large and complex, the effectiveness of OOP is more obvious, if you haven't dealt with large projects, it is harder to understand the point... Stick to your opinion if it makes you feel more comfortable.
Then there is no need to try to prove something that is essentially impossible to prove. It turns out that you cannot prove advantages of OOP over procedural style but you may prove that you can do without OOP and solve any task. So it turns out that I can prove what I claim while everyone else cannot prove anything but claims...
The starting point of OOP is structuring of the developer's thinking and nothing more. This structuring helps to see and build the logic of a program as if it were a script of a play. It's an additional opportunity to get into full integration with the machine and master it.
I have nothing against it, but it has nothing to do with improving the efficiency of the very mechanism that the program is.
That's the main thing I understood from all this communication.
Thank you all for your thoughts.
Then there is no need to try to prove something that is essentially impossible to prove. It turns out that you cannot prove advantages of OOP over procedural style but you can prove that you can do without OOP and solve any task. So it turns out that I can prove what I claim while everyone else cannot prove anything but claims...
The starting point of OOP is structuring of the developer's thinking and nothing more. This structuring helps to see and build the logic of a program as if it were a script of a play. It's an additional opportunity to get into full integration with the machine and master it.
I have nothing against it, but it has nothing to do with improving the efficiency of the very mechanism that the program is.
That's the main thing I understood from all this communication.
Thank you all for your sensible thoughts.
You just don't understand what you're arguing about, so you can't see that everything has already been proven. You are ridiculous, stop yelling into the ass of the snake gorynych.
You just don't understand what you're arguing about, so you can't see that everything has already been proven. You are ridiculous, stop yelling into the ass of the snake gorynych.
Then there is no need to try to prove something that is essentially impossible to prove. It turns out that you cannot prove advantages of OOP over procedural style but you can prove that you can do without OOP and solve any task. So it turns out that I can prove what I claim while everyone else can't prove anything but still claim.
The fact that all modern systems use OOP is not a proof of superiority? You're just not ready to understand, you ask simple questions and can't understand a complex answer... and think there is no answer... Well that's not right...
Theoriginal point of OOP is to structure the developer's thinking, - nothing more. This structuring helps to see and build the logic of a program as if it were a script of a play. It's an additional opportunity to get into full integration with the machine and master it.
That the mindset changes, yes, and at first it seems like what for? But when a project becomes a multitude of thousands of lines of code, you begin to reap the benefits )) and understand why and for what it was all for).
I have nothing against this, but this has nothing to do with improving the efficiency of the mechanism itself.
If a project is difficult and expensive to maintain and update, and another is quick and easy, the first will die - this is natural selection
An anecdote:
Ilya Muromets went to fight the Serpent Gorynych. A day goes by, two days go by, suddenly he sees a mountain, and there's a cave in it.
He looked into the cave and shouted:
- Gorynych the Serpent, come out, we'll fight!
And the answer is silence. He says again:
- Gorynych the Serpent, come out to fight!
Silence. For the third time:
- Gorynych the Serpent, come out and fight!
And then the head appears from behind the mountain:
- Well, let's fight, but why yell?
Similarly to this topic)) A long time ago I subscribed to Popular Mechanics magazine, there was a page of humour
Once Leo went out on the warpath. So he's walking like a blabbermouth. He meets a fox. Fox, quick, who's the king of beasts?
- Leva, of course you are!
Satisfied, he went on.
He met the hare, the same result.
Met the elephant. And the elephant was hot, he just waved his trunk from the flies and the lion flew away.
And do you know, my friends, what he said to the departing elephant, sitting in the bushes?
- And don't get mad if you don't know the answers.)