A question for OOP experts. - page 49

[[Deleted]]

Вчера писал в массивы

в гобальные, большие,

сегодня даст фору любому,

ведь симбиоз концепций

всех сильнее по-любому!

Хотя местами на детали клал,

но как экстраполировал!

ИИ родился непорочно,

стал по цепи ходить бессрочно.

Идёт налево - энурез,

направо - энкопрез.

By the way, a lot of cool concepts and top programming paradigms here http://govnokod.ru/cpp. Everything is copied from there, I've seen a lot of this in Yandex open-source projects.

[Реter Konow]

Vict:

I'm a programmer and I'm smart,

I'm, like, a million on a million,

I have the stamp of a high school, a university,

To soldiers of the code of one "faith".

What I crammed, that's what I know,

But I despise philosophy,

The form is important to me in the code!

And don't give me any crap about the "essence"!

I've been eating out of code for years,

I don't care about "mental" freedoms!

♪ I'm a sheep in the mainstream ♪

I look around in sheep's darkness.

I would lift my eyes to the sky,

And looked at from the side,

But like a sheep I'd give up eating,

With horns raised from the grass?

♪ my job is to pick up the slack ♪

For material returns.

My brain is calibrated long ago,

To understand otherwise is not given.

[Vitaly Muzichenko]

Реter Konow:

I'm a programmer and I'm smart,

I'm, like, a million on a million,

...

My brain has been calibrated for a long time,

♪ I can't understand otherwise ♪

I'm just gonna put it out there just in case, but not everyone will understand it:

[Реter Konow]

Artyom Trishkin:

There is a basic property object which has an event handler. This property object performs the primitive function of comparing its state with its past state and stores the result of the comparison - more/less/unchanged. It does this continuously during its lifetime.

Any property of any other object is the same object-property. And the other object itself is the heir of the object-property.

Thus an object constantly checks its state, and the state of its properties, and they in their turn check the state of all their properties (if they themselves are descendants of the object-property).

Each property has a unique identifier.

Thus every object knows which property has changed.

Every object has a handler that reacts when the properties change in one direction or another. It is up to the "creator" to specify how the object reacts to a change of property.

I think you're describing a mechanism, and you're calling it an object. It has an event handler and a set of functions. In other words, it is a complete and elaborate system.

So you believe that an Object is a class with a predefined set of initial properties and methods? And such a class is a universal building "material" for all the systems?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

SZZ. Let me remind you that we were talking about modelling of Objects by a computer system.

[Artyom Trishkin]

Реter Konow:

I think you are describing a mechanism by calling it an Object. It has an event handler and a set of functions. In other words, it is a complete and elaborate system.

So you think an Object is a class with a predefined set of initial properties and methods? And such a class is a universal building "material" for all the systems?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

SZU. Let me remind you that we were talking about modeling Objects by a computer system.

An object is a property. This object should have a life of its own. It's like a cell in an organism. It lives its own life, and it is endowed with a certain set of functions. If this cell is torn off from the organism, in which it exists, the organism will obviously not notice it - it is too small a cell, but some function will be damaged, and the organism will know about it, so it will naturally start the process of regeneration of the cell to fill the gap. But if you tear off a bigger part of the body, then those signals that are sent by the body cells multiplied by the number of removed cells will result in a strong pain - the body will not only notice it on the level of functionality, but on a higher level of consciousness - it will feel the pain, and it will decide what to do about it from the outside - the body itself can not do the simple regeneration process anymore.

It's understandable, isn't it?

Here's the property object - it too is endowed with a minimal set of functions. Namely, it can check its own state (value of that state) with its past state (value of that state). And it has a neuron which allows transferring this state to the "external world".

It is from such tiny particles that you create your "cells".

Just begin to do it, and it will become clear at once what to do, how to do it, and what size of the minimal object is needed (what minimal properties are needed for a possibility to simply increase them and connect with other cells), of which one cell of the future organism consists.

And what do you understand by "computer system" here? The computer itself, without your intervention, must begin to produce something inside itself?

A program must be born by itself?

Have you seen "Terminator"?

Multibillion-dollar investments (in dollars) around the world are now spent on AI research alone. And you want to go it alone on your mother's cakes?

[Реter Konow]

Artyom Trishkin:

...

1. What do you mean by "computer system" here? Is the computer itself, without your intervention, supposed to start producing something inside itself?

2. A program has to be born by itself?

...

1. A human will perform the function of a controller-tester, but will not code anything.

2. templates will be "born", scraps of functions which will be combined into more complex systems, with human involvement.

The task of modelling objects is not so much for human needs as for the AI itself. It is part of cognitive processes.

But perhaps the topic has reached a dead end. It needs work.

I will only say that I don't agree with your vision of the Object.

[Artyom Trishkin]

Реter Konow:

1. A human will act as a controller-tester, but will not code anything.

2. templates will be "born", scraps of functions that will be combined into more complex systems, with human involvement.

The task of modelling objects is not so much for human needs as for the AI itself. It is part of cognitive processes.

But perhaps the topic has reached a dead end. It needs work.

ZS. Let me just say that I don't agree with your vision of the Object.

I have a different vision of the Object. And what you have imagined for yourself - only you know.

I have shown an example of the minimum part of an object. Things can change from object to object.

[Vladimir Simakov]

Shit. Drunk. I read it, but I don't understand it much. Peter, understand that there are programming languages, many of them, their creators put into them certain mechanisms of memory management, and OOP is only one of the options. They are really different, really have their pros and cons. Therefore, if you want AI, fine, I envy it, because I never dare to do it myself. But you have to implement it not here, well, mql doesn't suit, exactly, as well as any other applied language. Read C here, even without C++, looks good. So, either you should switch to another forum or you're a "global" troll))).

[Aliaksandr Hryshyn]

Реter Konow:

1. A human will act as a controller-tester, but will not code anything.

2. templates will be "born", scraps of functions that will be combined into more complex systems, with human involvement.

The task of modelling objects is not so much for human needs as for the AI itself. It is part of cognitive processes.

But perhaps the topic has reached a dead end. It needs work.

I will only say that I don't agree with your vision of the Object.

Waiting for the implementation of AI :).

[Yury Kulikov]

Aliaksandr Hryshyn:
We are waiting for the implementation of the AI :).

What about the promised glass ..."an application of a fundamentally new level.A level previously unreachable by any MQL programmer".

No more waiting?