A question for OOP experts. - page 27
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
My approach is also an OOP. Only in a different presentation and less "objectivity" at the moment. But the essence is the same.
....
I want to create a "light" OOP based on kernel and engine, with minimal syntax, with digital representation of objects in the kernel, full-fledged hierarchy, classification, inheritance of properties and functions. That is, the same OOP, but mine.
Rehtag Konow:
My approach also works with objects, but they are much more concisely represented.
...My approach is also OOP, just not fully developed yet.
....With the standard OOP, you can't get it that easily.
????
why do you need OOP?
Don't waste your time or just tell your listeners that you're just having fun!
OOP is just a paradigm.... two programmers can figure out on their fingers what they want to say with their code, no more and no less! - if this is your OOP then why? - to whom?
here was a pleasure to hear today from a person "who is on the other side of the monitor", i don't know a person, i write for myself, but there was a need to discuss, i sent the code in OOP style, got a reply:
that's the whole point of OOP! - I write in such a way that I myself can read my task after a while and someone else can read what I have written! - in 90% of cases OOP can be translated into procedural programming without affecting ..... then an untranslatable word game with local idiomatic expressions follows .... (C) "The Diamond Arm".
SZZY: alas, I'm lazy and rarely write comments in code, but I try to write so that at least to remember what I wanted to write and get in the end, OOP helps me in that very much ;)
Hmmm, was browsing the Hubr today, for some reason the style of narration is very similar to yours, or rather the logic of the expediency of OOP:
Entry 3.
...
I spent four or five evenings on Sharp. Read two chapters from the tutorial. What can I say? I'm totally uninspired by the academic approach, based on writing meaningless programs that do abstract calculations. Not sure I could be proud of an application that calculates the area of a triangle.
....
Entry 4
First hurdle. Got to the concept of classes and objects. The concept is completely unclear. As if the idea itself is clear, but how and for what to apply it? Create classes for player, casino and roulette? Then invent objects in them? And what will they do? It's too drawn out. Seems like something unnatural and only confuses the program.
It came to me a few days later. I was walking with my son on the playground and looking at the world around me with object-oriented eyes.
Interesting article. The boy is at the very beginning of his journey.
Agree, it's not the particular implementation of OOP that matters, but the concept itself. It rests on three "elephants" - encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance. And to understand what all this is and why you need it, it's not enough to read articles and books. You will have to go a long way and solve many different tasks. I, for instance, did not need inheritance at all in graphics. But now I can't do without it at all. But I will implement it in my own way. I am not betraying myself)).
????
Why do you need OOP?
Don't waste your time or tell your listeners that you're just having fun!
OOP is just a paradigm.... two programmers can figure out on their fingers what they want to say with their code, no more and no less! - if this is your OOP then why? - to whom?
here was a pleasure to hear today from a person "who is on the other side of the monitor", i don't know a person, i write for myself, but there was a need to discuss, i sent the code in OOP style, got a reply:
that's the whole point of OOP! - write in such a way that you yourself can read your task after a while and someone else can read what I have written! - in 90% of cases OOP can be translated into procedural programming without affecting ..... then an untranslatable word game with local idiomatic expressions follows .... (C) "The Diamond Arm".
SZZY: alas, I'm lazy and rarely write comments in code, but I try to write so as to at least remember what I wanted to write and get in the end, OOP is a great help in that ;)
Interesting article. The guy is at the very beginning of his journey.
Agree, the main thing is not the specific implementation of OOP, but the concept itself. And it is based on three "elephants" - encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance. And to understand what all this is and why you need it, it's not enough to read articles and books. You will have to go a long way and solve many different tasks. I, for instance, did not need inheritance at all in graphics. But now I can't do without it at all. But I will implement it in my own way. I'm not betraying myself.)
Piotr, show me pics of your car, flat, clothes, food and so on.
At least a glimpse of individual concepts. You don't betray yourself - everything is all your own.
It is interesting to see how you pedal, generating electricity for lighting. And how do you make petrol for your car - with a moonshine machine? And how do you get oil from the bowels of the Earth? Do you pull it yourself or do you do it with a Negro? Or does the car run on air? Then what do you use to generate air?
Peter, show us photos of your car, flat, clothes, food, etc. and so on.
At least a glimpse of individual concepts. You're not cheating on yourself - everything is all your own.
It's interesting to see how you pedal to generate electricity for the lights. And how do you make petrol for your car - with a still? Or does it run on air? Then what do you use to generate air?
You're getting personal.
No. It's a misunderstanding. You say that you have your own thing, and that is the reason why you develop your own thing, and completely reject the achievements of a huge number of intelligent people who have done everything before you.
That was the kind of sarcasm about the pointlessness of your statements and even occupations - you go a very long way, not knowing what will be at the end.
You're getting into personalities.
And, yes - the whole thread is basically about one personality. Not about the PLO, but about a personality. Guess which one. And who only talks so inspirationally about himself.
No offence - I really don't understand you. Not your words, but your aspirations and undivided bragging about them.
No. It's a misunderstanding. You say that you have everything of your own, and that is the reason why you develop everything of your own, and completely reject the achievements of a huge number of sensible people who have already done everything before you.
So there was a kind of sarcasm about the pointlessness of your statements and even activities - you go a very long way, not knowing what will be at the end.
I want to explain why I wrote "my OOP", - because it's too long to use a standard one. You have to compress object descriptions and simplify syntax as much as possible.
OOP has no syntax! syntax is the prerogative of the programming language!
Actually, bypassing standard OOP, I want to invent my own mechanism of inheriting digital objects and their functionality. That is, to use the power of "three elephants" by harnessing them to another "cart".
hmm, back to the article againhttps://habr.com/ru/post/466641/
....
Somehow the established mentality (mine and those around me) seems to protect us from daring to experiment with something new. "I can't do it" sounds like a bloody death sentence. I see it every day at work when colleagues are faced with an unfamiliar task. I don't know how. End of programme.
My seven-year-old son is afraid to try unfamiliar activities. Because he doesn't know how. And you have to realise that at his age he doesn't know how to do a lot of things.
Sometimes I tell him "Buddy, if people only did what they know how to do, we'd still be living in caves, and you specifically would spend all day mooing, crawling and pooping in your trousers instead of playing Angry Birds. Although no, you'd be crawling around without trousers because no one knows how to sew."
Where am I going with this? I don't know how to program at all. But I'm going to learn. Not because I want to become a developer - I already have a profession. But because I can. Although I have three reasons.
At least, the author of this article realizes that you can reinvent the wheel all your life, you have been given a ready-made paradigm - a concept... and the experience of many programmers, your task is to learn how to use and if there are other tasks, just inherit... and so on
and you just invent my OOP... OK, it's really funny to discuss such nonsense at a technical forum.... there's an individual in the MQL4 for beginners branch too, he's been turning 2+2 into macros for about half a year, well, everyone has his own way
And, yes - the whole branch is basically about one personality. Not about the GOP, but about a personality. Guess which one. And who only talks so inspirationally about themselves.
No offence - I really don't understand you. Not your words, but your aspirations and undivided bragging about them.