A question for OOP experts. - page 29
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
the article is informative.
But what you want to do is
ZS: I was going to make it easy for you and suggest you look at a ready-made solution, but what's the point? You can add your vision of knowledge there too, but just in case, google CLIPS .... just in case?
Googled CLIPS, interesting. I guess you think that since you have CLIPS, you don't need to elaborate your own approach, you just should take CLIPS and use it to do everything. And if there's already a ready knowledge base there, just plug it in.
Question: Who needs me as a cunning ****?))) Take someone else's stuff, plug it in, write a couple of lines and "give me a million"?)
You can get a freebie like that on the street from anyone. No offence.
People are divided into consumers and producers. You're offering a consumerist view of the world. "Do you want to invent something? What for? Take what you have and use it. It's not effective? Fine. Not new? Fine. The main thing is that you don't have to think and work for yourself."
Люди делятся на потребителей и производителей. Вы предлагаете потребительский взгляд на мир. "Вы хотите что то изобрести? А зачем? Возьмите что есть и используйте. Не эффективно? И ладно. Не ново? И ладно. Главное, не нужно думать и работать самому.".
So you're suggesting not to use somebody else's ideas and to do everything yourself? Then learn to write directly in machine codes, because assembler is someone else's invention too.😁
A creative space is an unoccupied "area". It's where a person brings his or her ideas, images, plans to life. The size of this space depends on two things: (1) how occupied the area is by others, (2) how wide the individual's abilities are.
In programming, everyone defines his or her own area. I chose the approach, graphics in MQL and now AI. Others are busy with new strategies, Expert Advisors and indicators. Others have something else. Therefore, I don't connect anything that would decrease my creative space and prevent me from developing naturally. I think everyone does that.
Creative space is a "plot" not occupied by anyone.
I am not embarrassed to ask, but what century are you in now?
you know who the best programmers and hackers are these days? - it's the chinese!
you know why the hindu code is called that - it was invented by the indians!
you know why? because there are a lot of Hindus and even more Chinese!
and you are so "trendy and wide-eyed in the IT world" decided to ... you know, to turn things upside down but you can only beat the Indians with this approach...
))))
Peter. Understand at last that OOP is not studying other people's libraries, nobody forbids to write your own framework, OOP is an organization of work with data . There is no difference in access to an array element and a class field for the processor. In both cases it's computing an offset relative to the pointer, except that in the first case the offset is sizeof(T)*index and in the second case the compiler calculates the offset at compiling time. So in realtime, there's no difference...
I agree with you on everything, but I will make a correction in one letter:
You wrote: "OOP is a data organization."
I'll say, "OOP is a data organization".
That is, while preserving OBJECT ORIENTATION, you can come up with different methods of creating objects, setting inherited relationships, object descriptions, hierarchies, classifications.
THERE CAN BE DIFFERENT FORMS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INVARIANT OBJECT ORIENTATION.
The forms may determine the effectiveness in some tasks.
Example:
Teaching a deaf-blind person and teaching an ordinary person. The brain is the same, but in the first case learning will take an order of magnitude longer. A normal person 'downloads' data about the world directly from objects. They stream "inform" him of their properties through all his senses. All he has to do is to memorise without effort. A person limited in perception will "download" properties of objects through a narrow channel of interaction, in which there will be a very complex format of their description, and will try to memorize them, because unconscious mechanisms of memorizing, connected with sense organs, will not work.
Therefore, a specific implementation of OOP is of utmost importance in AI design.
I agree with you on everything, but I will make a correction in one letter:
You wrote: "OOP is a data organization."
I'll say, "OOP is a data organization".
That is, while preserving OBJECT ORIENTATION, you can come up with different methods of creating objects, setting inherited relationships, object descriptions, hierarchies, classifications.
THERE CAN BE DIFFERENT FORMS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INVARIANT OBJECT ORIENTATION.
The forms may determine the effectiveness in some tasks.
Example:
Teaching a deaf-blind person and teaching an ordinary person. The brain is the same, but in the first case learning will take an order of magnitude longer. A normal person "downloads" data about the world directly from objects. They stream "inform" him of their properties through all his senses. All he has to do is to memorise without effort. A person limited in perception will "download" properties of objects through a narrow channel of interaction, in which there will be a very complex format of their description, and will try to memorize them, because unconscious mechanisms of memorizing, connected with sense organs, will not work.
Therefore, the specific implementation of OOP is of utmost importance in AI design.
That's it. I'm out. Suggest a dealer, I want to try this chemistry too😩
I think technology rules here too... I've seen a new series on TNT called 'Bugs' where young people are sitting on mushrooms now )))
I'm sick of laughing too, this humorous topic is off the charts, I'll join you.
A simple analogy.
Take English and Russian. Both are "object-oriented", i.e. they always operate with objects and their interactions. But at the same time, in some questions English is much more effective than Russian (no offence to Russian, which I love very much), because of the simplified grammar apparatus. That is, the meaning is the same, but "procedural" semantic constructions are assembled and received faster in it, because the brain needs less energy to process words and their combinations. A noun in another view is already a verb and vice versa. Word combinations do not have to modify the original form of words. Russian is good for describing feelings, emotions, states of mind. Where speed and efficiency are not needed. This is an example of how specific forms of object-oriented implementation in human language can determine the effectiveness of communication in certain situations. It is the same in programming.
A simple analogy.
Take English and Russian. Both are "object-oriented", i.e. they always operate with objects and their interactions. But at the same time, in some questions English is much more effective than Russian (no offence to Russian, which I love very much), because of the simplified grammar apparatus. That is, the meaning is the same, but "procedural" semantic constructions are assembled and received faster in it, because the brain needs less energy to process words and their combinations. A noun in another view is already a verb and vice versa. Word combinations do not have to modify the original form of words. Russian is good for describing feelings, emotions, states of mind. Where speed and efficiency are not needed. This is an example of how specific forms of object-oriented implementation in human language can determine the effectiveness of communication in certain situations. It's the same in programming.
No one has yet surpassed the Russian vernacular in terms of speed of perception and efficiency. British scientists have proven.