ForumSections

A question for OOP experts. - page 46

New comment

Peter's answers are like... is carried in all directions)


Brevity and meekness is the path to Infinity.
Verbosity is the road to Nowhere.
Genius and schizophrenia are only one step apart. You be careful there, Peter.
Nikolai Semko:
Brevity and meekness are the road to Infinity.
Verbosity is the road to Nowhere.
Genius and schizophrenia are only one step apart. You be careful there, Peter.

Thank you for your concern, Nikolai. There is nothing to worry about, as I have been doing this kind of intellectual work all my conscious life. This is research. As far as I know from you, you've been working on the AI problem yourself. And I believe you hold the unique key to understanding it.

Реter Konow:

And you seemed to think you possessed the unique key to understanding it.

Oh, no! What key, just a modest bit of pattern recognition.
Nikolai Semko:
Come on! What a key, just a modest elaboration.

I, too, have only a modest amount of experience. I just put them out there for the public to see. Maybe someone will come up with a valuable idea. :)

For example - inheritance. I didn't understand why I needed it before, but it turned out to be a real treasure!)

I doubt that OOP apologists fully understand it. I doubt that most of them fully understand what an Object is and why OOP offers distribution of data from the abstract to the concrete. How is it that Objects in OOP are constantly organized in a hierarchy? Why is this necessary? Unlikely, many will meaningfully answer.

Реter Konow:

I, too, have only a modest amount of experience. I just put them out there for the public to see. Maybe someone will come up with a valuable idea. :)

For example - inheritance. I didn't understand why I needed it before, but it turned out to be a real treasure!)

I doubt that OOP apologists fully understand it. I doubt that most of them fully understand what an Object is and why OOP offers distribution of data from the abstract to the concrete. How is it that Objects in OOP are constantly organized in a hierarchy? Why is this necessary? It is unlikely, many will meaningfully answer.

That's what this is all about...
That OOP opens up new horizons and there is no limit to perfection.
I am only at the beginning of the journey of realizing the possibilities of OOP.
Реter Konow:

I, too, have only a modest amount of experience. I just put them out there for the public to see. Maybe someone will come up with a valuable idea. :)

For example - inheritance. I didn't understand why I needed it before, but it turned out to be a real treasure!)

I doubt that OOP apologists fully understand it. I doubt that most of them fully understand what an Object is and why OOP offers distribution of data from the abstract to the concrete. How is it that Objects in OOP are constantly organized in a hierarchy? Why is this necessary? Hardly, many people will meaningfully answer.

If someone does not understand something, it does not mean that everyone does not understand it either.

Nikolai Semko:
That's what we're talking about...
That OOP opens up new horizons and there is no limit to perfection.
I am only at the beginning of the journey of realising the possibilities of OOP.

There is a limit to everything.

I found the problem with standard OOP:

  • In multiple inheritance.
  • In transversal relationships between classes.
  • The problem with static inheritance chains and static encapsulation. But what if an Object is modeled and needs a dynamic structure? Manual rewriting will not allow such an Object to evolve quickly and naturally.

Standard OOP lacks the flexibility that human thinking possesses. The structures of all Objects are static, the inherited relationships do not change without changing the code. This is a serious drawback.


OOP is invariant and is a natural property of Consciousness, but its implementation can be flawed.

There are languages that have dynamic objects - you can add properties on the fly. But they are slow. It is also possible to provide objects with this feature, but it will be slow.
Dmitry Fedoseev:
There are languages that have dynamic objects - you can add properties on the fly. But they are slow. It is also possible to provide objects with this feature, but it will be slow.
I see. Thank you.
1...394041424344454647484950515253...55
New comment