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
This functionality is imaginary, designed for the gullible. All possible functions can be implemented within traditional languages. It's just a wish to replace syntax shortening with functionality which in reality only hides real implementation of the algorithm, which harms both the programmer and the tools of code optimization for different computing architectures...
But you won't deny that functional languages are head and shoulders above procedural languages in implementing multi-threaded algorithms.
The logic is clear, since OOP means not functional... facepalm......
ooh, someone doesn't know what functional programming is ))))
it was you who came up with that logic, not me. that's not what i meantOooh, someone doesn't know what functional programming is ))))
Damn, man, first you should learn the topic a little bit and then come with your illiterate comments.
Just for reference: here, here, here, here, and so on.
When I saw Alexei's avatar, I thought it was going to be about women again... and I wasn't mistaken
There are still some fundamental people and things left on the forum.
There's still some fundamental people and things on the forum.
I didn't doubt it.
Hands off our Casanova! At least I'm glad someone's got a lot of broads...
A cold-blooded response to provocation:
Those with experience will not ask such questions )))))))) For it is the parent class that does nothing. Its job is to provide a single parent for all offspring. And for what purpose?
It's not just a "parent class that does nothing".
It provides basic sheet and comparison functionality.
I think it's very correct and necessary.
So, CObject is "a list object that can be compared". And while we can argue about whether this functionality should be in a base object or not, I think that the Compare() function is a very useful thing. Personally I use it for array sorting and searching.This is not just a 'parent class that does nothing'.
It provides basic sheet and comparison functionality.
In my opinion, a very correct and necessary one.
It's exactly this functionality was not intended to be implemented in CObject. Almost everything it contains is redundant and incorrect.
What's that supposed to mean?
What should be in the "base object" according to you?
Personally I have almost ALL objects in all my projects - inherited from CMyObject: public CObject, (in my object two more fields are added - class name and instance ID), and repeatedly found that I need CObject::Compare() functionality very much. A couple of times list pointers also came in handy.
What's that supposed to mean ?
What do you think should be in the "base object"?
Personally, I have almost ALL objects in all my projects inherited from CMyObject: public CObject class, (in my object two more fields are added - class name and instance ID), and more than once I've found that CObject::Compare() functionality was rather helpful. A couple of times list pointers also came in handy.
Good point. It would be nice if the arguments were supported by code, not just blah-blah-blah.
And to the author of the topic, I'd like to point out that "Talking about OOP at the lounge" is correct.
Why such a boring topic? People would come up for something like this: "AOP, chicks, trading", "AOP, styling and chicks", "AOP, chicks or drink in Peter", "SOTCA, BAAABY, AOP".
Just kidding :-))
Shit, man, you should know the topic a little bit first and then make your illiterate comments.
Are you an idiot? )) I didn't say one bad word about F#. Learn to read and understand what you're told before posting your stupid comments.
If you're comparing OOP with FP, it's more reasonable to compare it with a pure FP language, i.e. haskel. F# is already so-so, while python and R are not at all. That's what I mean. Otherwise we may come to a point where C++ is also an FP language.