Crowdsourced GUI. Open beta testing. - page 20
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
No, it's not a reference and it's not an object. A reference is something that can be placed in a variable. You have a specific value you can put into a variable - an index! The index is not the array string itself, it is a specific number!
Behind any reference is a memory cell number. Behind any object is an array of data. No matter how you look at it. I just abandoned unnecessary conventions.
Let's not argue. I'm not imposing my point of view.
After all, everyone has their own world view.
No, it's not a reference and it's not an object. A reference is something that can be placed in a variable. You have a specific value you can put into a variable - an index! The index is not the array string itself, it's a specific number!
Peter tried to teach OOP. They explained what an object is, but did not explain that in OOP an object is a class
They tried to teach Peter about OOP. They explained what an object is, but did not explain that in OOP an object is a class
And what is a class at the PC level?) An array of data.
What's a computer-level class?) An array of data.
No, a class is a class. And an array of data is an array of data. Data can be both values of simple types and instances of an object (not an array of objects, but an array of instances of one object!!!).
Programming is not a philosophy. It is a concretism. And there is a common terminology for everyone to speak the same language. But you have your own language, so you are proudly alone.
No, a class is a class. And an array of data is an array of data. Data can be both simple types and instances of an object (not the objects themselves, but their instances!!!).
Programming is not a philosophy. It is a concretism. And there is a common terminology for everyone to speak the same language. But you have your own language, so you are proudly alone.
So be it. Although, programming has long been a philosophy. And a very deep one at that.
At the level of a computer, it's simple. But, to say that Object is not a philosophy? All abstract notions derived from it are not a philosophy? It's a dime a dozen here...)))
Inheritance, classes, instances - not a philosophy?))
So be it. Although, programming has long been a philosophy. And a very deep one at that.
At the level of the computer, it's simple. But, to say that Object is not a philosophy? All abstract notions derived from it are not a philosophy? It's a dime a dozen here...))
Sometimes it's not technicians but humanitarians who get into programming by accident. So they, to justify their miserable existence, start inventing all sorts of philosophy, because programming is too complicated for them.
don't get into a fight, hot estonian guys :-)
You don't care whether you refer to an array element, a memory address or "MQL object". You don't care what to consider an object within the framework of an "application library".
a reference is a reference, be it direct or indirect, named or relative via index, the main thing is how to understand and use it.
Well, you can now create your own OOP on top of MQL on arrays. Even with the scary words reflection, introspection. It's just a little strange not to use what's available, but "he's an artist, this is how he sees" :-).
Yes, at a minimum you get "object", "MQL object", "Peter's object". And the programmer cannot read such code without valerian, writing it is out of the question.
Sometimes it's not technicians who get into programming by accident, but humanitarians. So they, to justify their miserable existence, start inventing all sorts of philosophy, because programming is too complicated for them.
And how do you explain to a technologist what an"event-driven model" is? Or that any entity that has properties can be an Object? How can you explain what an abstract class and multiple inheritance are?
don't get into a fight, hot estonian guys :-)
I do not care at all what to refer to - an array element, an address in memory or "MQL object". I don't care what to consider an object in an application library.
A link is a link, direct or indirect, named or relative through an index, the main thing is how to understand and use it.
Well, you can now create your own OOP on top of MQL on arrays. Even with the scary words reflection, introspection. It's just a little strange not to use what's available, but "he's an artist, this is how he sees" :-).
Yes, at a minimum you get "object", "MQL object", "Peter's object". And the programmer cannot read such code without valerian, writing it is out of the question.
That's right, that's right. There is no reason to break a bone here. There are people who cling to the rules so tightly that they cannot even think of looking behind them once. They're the ones I have conflicts with.
How do you explain to a technician what an "event model" is? Or that any entity with properties can be an object? How do you explain what an abstract class and multiple inheritance are?
You don't need philosophy to explain what an object is. For objects are parts of life itself.
There is the object "living thing".
There is the object "insect", which is the heir to the object "living thing".
There is the object "mammal" which is the heir to the object "living being".
There is the object "human being", which is the heir to the object "mammal
There is the object "Papkin", which is a copy of the object "human"
There is an object "cook", which is the heir of the object "human"
etc. Where's the philosophy here?
OOP clearly describes this mechanism of inheritance ( and not only inheritance)
Each object has a set of attributes and methods that are passed on inheritance. Everything is strictly logical and concrete. There is no philosophy at all.