A question for OOP experts. - page 26
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 do not hear anything, you reject suggestions to read decent authors, saying that you have experience, I know everything.
I have already written - tying all the objects by inheritance is a big mistake which you don't understand at once. But you want your own bumps, well, good luck.
You do not hear anything, you reject suggestions to read decent authors, saying that you have experience, I know everything.
I have already written - tying all the objects by inheritance is a big mistake which you don't understand at once. But you want your own bumps, well, good luck.
Sorry, I'm just at the beginning of my journey.)
Let me explain. The bottom line is that OOP replicates the unconscious distribution of information in our memory. Information is "laid out" in a cascading and "tree-like" manner. This is conditioned by the unconscious archetype (a hidden mechanism). People have "felt" this mechanism and began to apply it successfully in programming. OOP implements transfer of common properties and functions through chains of inheritance, according to the same scheme as our unconscious.
With a better understanding of how our conscious and unconscious minds work, we will be able to replicate their mechanism in the computer. I simply stepped back from the technical details and looked at the root of the concept.
when are you going to stop smoking?
I've been thinking a lot about the concept of OOP and this is it:
... because we are simply copying our own unconscious patterns in working with information.
Yes, Peter, everything - there are emanations of Eagle.
Stop procrastinating.
Just do it! Start coding objects.
Yes, Peter, everything is there - Eagle's emanations.
Stop procrastinating.
Just do it! Start coding objects.
It seems that the beginning has been delayed. It's about time to convert your subject to OOP, realize what we have and start thoughtfully inventing the architecture of the solution. Less lyricism and more practice.
My approach is also an OOP. Only in a different presentation and less "objectivity" at the moment. But the essence is the same.
1. encapsulation in the kernel is present.
2. Partial polymorphism. That is, the engine works with the Windows and the elements as such, but in each block there is an insertion of conditions that define work with specific types of elements.
3. At the moment there is no inheritance of the properties of objects, because the graphical core does not provide hierarchy. However, this can be fixed.
I want to create a "lightweight" OOP based on kernel and engine, with minimal syntax, with digital representation of objects in the kernel, full hierarchy, classification, inheritance of properties and functions. That is, the same OOP, but mine.
Yes, Peter, everything - there are Eagle emanations.
Stop procrastinating.
Just do it! Start coding objects.
A lot of thought has gone into the concept of OOP, and here's what:
Let's abstract away from syntax and technical terms, leaving the concepts of "Class", "Object", "Property", "Encapsulation", "Polymorphism", "Inheritance". I will describe the philosophical "root" of the concept.
Reality is perceived by consciousness through prisms of "Space", "Time" and "Matter" (this is how the sense organs work), and "Object" is a discrete result of their continuous interaction.
The diversity of forms of interaction generates a diversity of objects that are "planted" by the unconscious of the subject on a certain "framework". This framework has a branching, cascading structure and is "built" into the unconscious, being one of its "archetypes". The framework takes on new and new objects (information about them) that are distributed throughout its structure. This is where the concept of OOP comes from.This is a conscious distribution and binding of objects imitating the "algorithm" of the unconscious. Having mastered the methods of one's own thinking the subject is able to simulate its work in the "tracing" mechanism of the brain - the computer. Even if a computer is just a pathetic parody of a brain, but man himself perceives only shadows of the objective world. The cascade, branching archetype, is a "pattern" of distribution of objects, properties, processes and all information inside our memory in general. It is a biological tool to simplify the perception of reality, structuring a model of the world around us. It is given to us by Nature. Awareness of our own "natural" (i.e. unconscious) information processing mechanism is a level of self-awareness necessary to use OOP.
Consider this implicit, biological, "tree-like" archetype that facilitates memorisation, learning and perception, in the context of its "artificial" application.In OOP, we "produce" objects by encapsulating their descriptions in classes, where we establish their properties and values. The relationships of objects are reflected in their classification, and implemented through the inheritance of properties and methods from global to private. Practically, it looks like this: every private object is just an object and therefore has all the properties of just an object + its private properties. Derived objects will have its private properties as their common properties, but will have their private properties. Further, the chain can branch indefinitely. It is the same with methods of objects. A method reflects an action, an interaction, a process, a change of states. Methods of objects are distributed from general to private like properties. If there is a general process, each discrete form will have its own properties. And this is polymorphism. That is, unlike overloading, polymorphism provides a different private implementation of an underlying function while retaining its underlying mechanism. This is "functional" inheritance.
As we can see, "tree-like" in OOP is everywhere - no matter what schemes you invent, you'll still get a "tree"). But, this is also correct, because we just copy our own unconscious patterns in working with information.
Hmm, was leafing through the Hubr today, for some reason the style of presentation is very similar to yours, or rather the logic of the expediency of OOP:
Entry 3
...
I spent 4-5 evenings at 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.
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.
That's an A!))