The EOP for schoolchildren. - page 2

New comment
 
Koldun Zloy:

...

I will give my opinion on the first post of the thread and its example.

1. You contrasted one method of storing data with the other two and stated that it is better because... better and that's it. At the level of such simple tasks, it is impossible to prove the preference of using OOP, which carries a more complex syntactic wrapper and its own data types. A beginner won't understand the need for complexity unless he or she is going to write something fundamental. What is the structure for in the task? For a beginner, the first two methods are clearer and easier.

2. OOP is a complicated concept which one must grow up to. Challenging tasks help one to appreciate the advantages of the object approach. A person comes to such tasks years later. Therefore, it is too early for schoolchildren to try to explain the necessity of OOP by such simple examples. They will not understand and at best, instead of rejecting it, will resemble a fool hammering nails with a computer.

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

This defines the programming language.

Who forbids doing this in MQL?

class A
{
        int m_nCnt;

public:
        int GetCnt() const
        {
                return m_nCnt;
        } 

        void SetCnt(const int nCnt)
        {
                m_nCnt = nCnt;
        }
}
 
By the way, I realized late that my approach is also OOP, but implemented differently and incompletely. That is, you can deny OOP as much as you like, but complex tasks will "drag" the denier to the object approach in any syntactic form and with any terminology. I'm a supporter of OOP too. Just my own.
 

Hello!

The idea of training schoolchildren is certainly a good thing. But it is not quite clear, but by the word "schoolboy" who do you imagine? A person with at least higher education but who does not understand programming and especially OOP or a specialist having basic understanding and experience in programming? I should say at once that I belong to the first group of schoolchildren.

My first impression is of what I've read. You are trying to present everything in a disjointed way. I'm sure an average schoolchild would always ask you such a question as what AOP is? The advanced schoolboy will certainly look for information on the Internet, but then why create this branch if everything can be found on the Internet?

Maybe you should first draw up a syllabus for teaching schoolchildren, like in a textbook, and then disclose the matter step by step?

To be honest, I haven't understood and haven't got anything out of what has been written here. I would very much like to learn how to create programs for automated trading.

I wrote this post not to insult the person who decided to share his knowledge, but on the contrary, in order to increase the effectiveness of education in this branch.

Sincerely, Vladimir.

 
Ihor Herasko:

Who forbids doing this in MQL?

Getters and setters are part of a thing called property. in your case they are just functions.
 
Реter Konow:

I will give my opinion on the first post of the thread and its example.

1. You contrasted one method of storing data with the other two and said it's better because... better and that's it. At the level of such simple tasks, it is impossible to prove the preference of using OOP, which carries a more complex syntactic wrapper and its own data types. A beginner won't understand the need for complexity unless he or she is going to write something fundamental. What is the structure for in the task? For a beginner, the first two methods are clearer and easier.

2. OOP is a complicated concept which one must grow up to. Challenging tasks help one to appreciate the advantages of the object approach. A person comes to such tasks years later. Therefore, it is too early for schoolchildren to try to explain the necessity of OOP by such simple examples. They will not understand and at the best case they will resemble a fool hammering nails with a computer instead of rejecting it.

I thought it was obvious even with a small number of points. If there are thousands of them, and they make up more complex shapes, the advantage will be even greater.

 
TheXpert:
getters and setters are part of a thing called property. in your case they are just functions.

Does it make a difference?

 
TheXpert:
Getters and setters are part of a thing called property. in your case, they are just functions.

If the notion of getters and setters is meant, as in Java, then again we come to the point where it can be created by overloading the assignment operator.

 
Koldun Zloy:

Does it make a difference?

In fact, it doesn't.
 
MrBrooklin:

Hello!

The idea of teaching schoolchildren is, of course, a good thing. Here's just not quite clear, but by the word "schoolchildren" who do you imagine? A person who has at least higher education but does not understand programming and especially in OOP or a specialist having basic understanding and experience in programming? I should say at once that I belong to the first group of schoolchildren.

My first impression is of what I've read. You are trying to present everything in a disjointed way. I'm sure an average schoolchild would always ask you such a question as what AOP is? The advanced schoolboy will certainly look for information on the Internet, but then why create this branch if everything can be found on the Internet?

Maybe you should first draw up a syllabus for teaching schoolchildren, like in a textbook, and then disclose the matter step by step?

To be honest, I haven't understood and haven't got anything out of what has been written here. I would very much like to learn how to create programs for automated trading.

I did not write this post to insult the person who decided to share his knowledge, but on the contrary, in order to increase the effectiveness of education in this thread.

Sincerely, Vladimir.

I wrote "schoolboy" because the examples are very simple and there is a detailed explanation.

Of course this is intended for anyone who is interested.

I often observe on this forum how people try to grasp OOP by simply, without any sense, stuffing a few functions into a class.

You could spend some time and read at least something, though.

There will be no full-fledged course here. I have only shown that OOP is not "something scary".

The main purpose of this thread is to encourage people to read books.

123456789...18
New comment