A question for OOP experts. - page 53
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
The representation of systems in the Matrix gives a new perspective on their structures, but I did not see any hint of facilitating the creation of systems. Not to mention any "self-development". It's damned interesting to look at systems that way, but no more than that. I don't see any self-development or even a hint of it. Therefore, let's leave the divine to God. No self-development of systems can be achieved neither by the standard OOP-approach, nor by mine.
I want to understand a few things I've been interested in all my life.
1. Is it possible to create a self-developing system?
2. Is it possible to create a process in which multiple systems interact, change and evolve?
3) Can anything emerge without an initial concept in place?
4. What happens if I combine my representation of objects in the kernel and the standard OOP, with its inheritance and encapsulation of objects? Will it be possible to simplify the creation of complex systems?
I have answered the first question in the post above.
2. You can create interacting and changing systems, but you cannot achieve autonomous development. You can create the "illusion" of systems development, replacing it with "unpacking". This is realistic.
3. I can't speak for God, but it is impossible for man to create an environment in which things are formed that man would not know the concepts of beforehand.
4. Already crossed. Received - a new view on systems and no more. Predictions are pessimistic.
You have made it difficult for yourself, you have confused and you have been horrified by it.
The representation of systems in the Matrix gives a new perspective on their structures, but I did not see any hint of facilitating the creation of systems. Not to mention any "self-development". It's damned interesting to look at systems that way, but no more than that. I don't see any self-development or even a hint of it. Therefore, let's leave the divine to God. No self-development of systems can be achieved neither by standard OOP approach, nor by mine.
.
.
You seem to be an intellectually advanced person, but you post all sorts of nonsense, making others forget that you seem to be an expert in something. I have not seen anything meaningful from you for a long time. One empty trolling, understandable only to you.)
Maybe you recognize yourself in the video, who knows what you mean?
Artem, please give your definition of Object.
Artem, please give me your definition of Object.
I mean a philosophical definition, not a technical one. Your technical definition I have already understood. It is a property and its handler. I added you - an event and its handler, a state and its handler. You see, I've enriched your idea. :)
It's hard for me - I'm not a theorist, I'm a practitioner. I'll try it simply:
In that case, I have "planted" new prisms on Object to you. An Object-state is not described by a class, but has a physical entity in memory. A class isa description of an Object. There can be different things there. It is rather a complex of Objects. But the Object itself is a named entity.
I mean a philosophical definition, not a technical one. Your technical definition I have already understood. It is a property and its handler. I added you - an event and its handler, a state and its handler. You see, I've enriched your idea. :)
That said, an entity is not necessarily indivisible. It can consist of other entities, and be one Object. For example - an Object-system. It has many entities and each entity is an Object.
Another interesting thing is that structurally an Object-State is similar to an Object-Event.
What is a state? It is a set of meaningful parameters of a system in a fixed meaningful invariance. THE MEANINGFUL INVARIANCE OF THE SYSTEM'S PARAMETERS IS A STATE. And an Event is a meaningful change in the parameters of the system. They are structurally similar.