OOP vs procedural programming - page 15
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
OOP supporters say: let's create objects. What is the meaning of object fields, if actions with these fields are not defined?
Nobody creates objects for the sake of existence of objects, before development of the program, analytics is conducted where all actions, storage structures are defined. Complex projects need a development strategy, if everything is done competently, the efficiency will be high
San-Sanych, I was recently approached by a supposedly progger, he even managed to sell something in the Market.
He said that I tried to glue some programs together and I had a compilation error, so he sent me his, so to speak, glue. He promised to pay me.
I took a look and I'm sick, 59 compilation errors.
Lots of global variables like n,c,m.
All conflicting with each other.
And the guy's sure he just needs a few tweaks and he's ready to go to Market.
Will OOP save him?
This whole GOP debacle is on a universal scale.
After all, you have to have so much talent to push something like this on a global scale.
...
Take a much larger software system: R.
R is an object-oriented language, if you don't know it. Not only that, but absolutely all containers are objects. I.e. every time you use arrays, you use the OOP you've been dwarfing.
Will the PLO save him?
Easily
You shouldn't accept it.
The last team I worked on had about 300 people. The total workload for the whole programme project is around 1500 man-years. Organising such a team to work together will not help any OOP. For this, there were other approaches, involving the breakdown of the whole problem into stages and the careful regulation of everything and everyone at each step. There were GOSTs that described it. In programming, it was the USSD (Unified System of Program Documentation). In terms of labor intensity, coding itself took about 20% of labor input.
Don't listen to the advocates of OOP. You are on the right track. Even the fact that you don't merge two variables into one structure doesn't show any profit
Frankly speaking, I thought I was the only one who considers OOP to be a scam on a global scale.))) It turns out I'm not the only one.
Your opinion is based on experience that can be seen with the naked eye. I agree with him.
Thank you for your support.
Honestly, I thought I was the only one who thought the PLO was a global scam.))) Turns out I'm not.
Your opinion is based on experience, which can be seen with the naked eye. I stand in solidarity with it.
Thanks for your support.
Experience stuck at the level of the 1960s
The experience of being stuck at the level of the 1960s
You know, I can see a person who knows and understands the essence of his case straight away. A few formulations are enough and it is clear that the person knows what he is talking about. San Sanych understands the essence of programming and development very well. That is the main thing.
What's the point? Don't understand OOP and swear at it?
No one creates objects for the sake of having objects; before developing a programme, analytics is carried out where all the actions and storage structures are defined. Complex projects need a development strategy; if everything is done correctly, the efficiency will be high.
Let's take an example.
Entry: Quote
Exit: BUY/SEEL
Input into output is transformed by a random forest algorithm. This algorithm generates an object of class rf. The fields of this object are meaningful only within this algorithm. If you need to understand the SIGNIFICANCE, the sense of the fields, you should study the algorithm itself.
Where is the OOP here? Although there is an "object", there is a class of this object "rf".
Let's take an example.
Entry: Quote
Out: BUY/SEEL
Input into output is converted by a random forest algorithm. This algorithm generates an object of class rf. The fields of this object are meaningful only within this algorithm. If you need to understand the SIGNIFICANCE, the sense of the fields, you should study the algorithm itself.
Where is the OOP here? Although there is an "object", there is the class of this object "rf".
Why do you need to create an object? Are you sure you understand what you're reasoning about?