Talking about the PLO in the lounge - page 3

 
Andrei:

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. How many cores does your CPU have?
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:
But you won't deny that functional languages are head and shoulders above procedural languages in implementing multi-threaded algorithms.
Don't confuse the concepts. Functional languages have fast implementation in the compiler for some functions, which therefore have a short syntax, but the same could have been done for functions in traditional languages as well, but they failed or did not want to. As soon as they do, all functional languages will immediately go down the drain as non-universal and one-sided.
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

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 meant
 
Комбинатор:

Oooh, 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.

Влюбляемся в F#: Доза 0: Зачем нужен ещё один язык программирования?
Влюбляемся в F#: Доза 0: Зачем нужен ещё один язык программирования?
  • 2003.02.09
  • habrahabr.ru
Дорогие Хабраколлеги! Хочу предложить вашему вниманию возможность приобщиться еще к одному языку программирования: F#. Идея писать такого рода заметки возникла из жизни — по роду своей деятельности мне приходится рассказывать про F#, и когда меня спрашивают, где можно попродробнее прочитать об этом языке — приходится ссылаться на англоязычные...
 
Maxim Dmitrievsky:

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...

 
Alexey Volchanskiy:

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.
 
George Merts:

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.

This is exactly the functionality that should not have been implemented in CObject. Almost everything in it is redundant and wrong.
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:
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.

 
George Merts:

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 :-))

 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

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.