Representation of an object in programming. - page 3
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
2. Here, are some of my claims:
There is a good book: Design Patterns by Eric Freeman, Elizabeth Freeman.
I think after reading it, some of the claims will be dropped.
There is a good book: Design Patterns by Eric Freeman, Elizabeth Freeman.
I think some of the claims will be dropped after reading it.
Thanks, I'll try to get it.
Thanks, I'll try to get it.
https://b-ok.cc/book/3691688/443e5e
https://b-ok.cc/book/3691688/443e5e
There is a good book: Design Patterns by Eric Freeman, Elizabeth Freeman.
I think after reading it, some of the claims will be dropped.
Elizabeth Robson, not Freeman. )) At first I thought they were husband and wife.
Attentive ). Right.
I had that in the file name, I copied, didn't even focus on the names of all the co-authors.
Happy New Year, everyone!
I haven't been here in a while. I got a bit nostalgic and decided to come back to tell what I've been doing for the last year. And it was the conception of Object, which is directly related to programming.
We are used to witnessing how automation takes over the world and programmers have always been in the lead of the process, but recent developments strongly suggest that machine-learning technology is "trying" to squeeze manual programming out of the mainstream, putting many coders out of work. And indeed it is happening - why write algorithms where statistical models can work? Why build a condition tree by code when it is much easier to reproduce it by "learning"? Rhetorical questions. Also, as computer power increases, so does the speed and quality of what is now commonly referred to as AI, and the more advanced it is, the less a human needs to work with his or her hands or head.
Of course, modern AI can do many things - recognize faces, voice, drive a car, beat grandmasters at chess, communicate on any topic (GPT-3) and many others, and it would seem, why go back to the roots of programming and try to rethink once and by whom realized the concept of Object in OOP, if it is already clear that the world is moving away from manual programming? What is the point?
The answer to this question will be both simple and complex at the same time. I believe that machine learning technology has a limit of development, which cannot be crossed only by increasing power of neurochips, training speed and size of models created. AI can do all of the above, but only separately. That is, one version is sharpened for recognition, another for chess, and a third for communication. We can already see how ML is slowly coming to a standstill when Musk builds the new DoJo computer, which will occupy an entire building and consume 1.2 Megawatts of power and at the same time, will teach the model to drive, which a person learns on 20 watts consumed by his brain. In other words, it is possible to say that the human brain performs similar work with energy efficiency exceeding that of a supercomputer by about 60 thousand times. Of course, all this is very approximate. Besides, modern AI technology is not applicable at all to many tasks, with which human thinking works. Basically, this is complex thought constructions defining orientation in unfamiliar situation, improvisation, deduction and induction, creation of action plans from scratch and so on...The reason is that brain does not work based only on ML principles (though working principles of ML itself are taken from brain) and that is why it is impossible to catch up its possibilities using only this technology. It is quite obvious already now.
And so, in possession of Brain there is "hidden" some other technology of work with data, which we do not understand and do not see. What is it? In my opinion, Nature gave a possibility to a human Brain to see and to work with some essence, present everywhere and everywhere, and hid this essence from his consciousness deeply in subconsciousness. That is, one sees and does not see it at the same time and this allows one not to "stumble" every time. This is the Object - the abstraction that is in everything.
Whatever a person thinks about, reasons about, analyses or learns - his intellect unconsciously always works with the Object model. This is what classical programming both found and missed. That is, it did not realized it in full and that is why - format and syntax of classical OOP are made for solving problems of that time when it was created and, respectively, developers did not face the task of creating a perfect copy of human intelligence, but had to invent a programming method which could compress the code volume and make it more universal. By and large, that's all they were aiming at. And indeed, thanks to the old OOP, the programming was strongly optimised, which allowed reaching new heights, previously unachievable, but the modernity led us to the task of creating something similar to human intelligence, and this requires updating the OOP approach.
In brief, I described the reason why I undertook to update the concept of the Object in programming. If this topic is of interest, I will continue with the story of the concept itself, which I have been working on for the last year and a half.
In brief, I described the reason why I undertook to update the concept of the Object in programming. If this topic is of interest, I'll continue with the story of the concept itself, which I've been working on for the last year and a half.
What a surprise!
Peter, good to have you back on the forum...
and immediately - ML in the world, in programming topics it's usually Standart ML(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML).
What a surprise !
Peter, good to have you back on the forum...
and at once - ML in the world, in programming threads it's usually Standart ML(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML).
Thanks!)
Of course, as a tool for implementing a ready-made idea SML has its advantages and is worth considering in more detail. However, many languages have their pros and cons. Lately I like the cool features of OOP and I'm discovering its "toolkit", but the question of hierarchical classification, dynamic change of object properties or content, modification of logical and event models in the program "on the fly" - all that is constantly doing our thinking. The extent to which modern languages can implement such mechanisms remains a big question for me.