A question for OOP experts. - page 13

New comment
 
Реter Konow:

Life is definitely not enough. So, it's about choosing your own site. For me, it's a programming approach. Anything below (electricity, computer, language) is accepted. But the approach itself is my platform. Objective, to test the potential of the kernel-movement idea in program development. Macro-task is to come to software self-development. How realistic it is, I do not know, but through AI it is certainly possible.


ZS. And do not let them think that if my work is not needed here, then I gave up, cried and became a loser)).

Well, as I said, your approach is a red thread. Why did you have to start the topic of OOP?

I was into electronics when I was a kid, you know what I lost a lot of time on? I tried to understand clearly how a transistor works (not in the sense of collector current control through base current, but on a micro level), and the descriptions in books didn't suit me. Why did I bother? I should have accepted the existing experience without asking too many questions. You are doing about the same thing, your bikes, your approaches ... . There might be fish there, but it's unlikely. Stroustrup's place is already taken.

 
Vict:

Well, as I said, your approach is a red thread. Why did you have to bring up OOP?

I was into electronics when I was a kid, you know what I lost a lot of time on? I was trying to understand clearly how a transistor works (not in the sense of collector current control via base current, but at the micro level), and the descriptions from books didn't suit me. Why did I bother? I should have accepted the existing experience without asking too many questions. You are doing about the same thing, your bikes, your approaches ... . There might be fish there, but it's unlikely. Stroustrup's place is already taken.

I don't mind using useful things. Well, I've taken the Canvas class and stripped it out, taking out the functions that draw on the canvas, modified it and inserted it into my engine. I use them to draw animation. But, rarely. If I were to use whole Canvas then, - goodbye my approach, hello OOP. That's the difference. I'm ready to use out-of-the-box solutions.
 
In general, it's not about the approach. It's about human ability. They are the key to inventions. If you have them, anything is possible. How and with what is secondary. It becomes clear as we go along.
 
Реter Konow:
In general, it's not about the approach. It's about human ability. They are the key to inventions. If you have them, anything is possible. How and with what is secondary. It becomes clear as we go along.
Peter, what have you invented so far? Any patents?
 
Artyom Trishkin:
Peter, what has already been invented? Any patents?
Yes. But I won't talk about that here.
 
Реter Konow:
There is. But, I won't talk about it here.
So does everyone, and again - everyone is "not going to talk about it here".
 
Artyom Trishkin:
So does everyone, and again - everyone is "not going to talk about it here".
))) I'm wondering, what is there to patent? Distribution of object properties in a large array?)) Maybe, names of variables? Or patent your own brains?)) I was only joking.
 
Right now, I am about to patent my concept. There are investors. So, it's serious.
 
Vict:

And don't try to create a hierarchy of everything from everything (I went through this), it is not necessary at all (like this delusion - all entities in a program must be related). And oop is not synonymous with polymorphism with virtual functions, which is the impression one gets from reading many books.

hmm, to be honest, thank you very much! I was up all night (at work) wondering what@A100 wanted to teach me or vice versa - like you don't understand the great and powerful OOP, everything must "spin" by itself and any mention of OOP in vain without knowing the essence, which is pure reference... and then...


I'm familiar with VS2017 C# libraries, they're all written in copy form, and the very logic of the code is very similar to MQL SB

well, thanks again, you helped me to stop looking for something I don't understand - I wrote and will write again, the code should be efficient first of all, of course we can talk about what is efficient code, but I can only say it briefly:

- it's code that doesn't have duplicate sections of code in the source code

- This code can be easily modified for the next task (within a general industry concept)

- This code is tied to the operating system or hardware - it is effective here and now - this is what the customer needs in the end

this is about this in a nutshell, and how this code is written on pure OOP, on subroutine calls or on the use of both in different code sections - no matter, this will not be "programming orgasm" in the end, but just machine code that will be executed by processor or controller

 

Peter, aaaaah!

I was beginning to think that you actually realized the need to study OOP.
And you just got bored and decided to talk about the fact that the Earth is flat...

1...67891011121314151617181920...55
New comment
Reason: