Re: on named blocks concept

fir wrote:

Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 07.11.2024 um 18:01 schrieb fir:
>

the subtypes are things that 1{sing(); } 2 { swim(); 3 { fly();} 4
{sing(); swim(); } 5 { swim(), fly()} ; 6 { sing(); fly();}

>
With that you could use three interfaces (classes with only pure
virtual functions) and derive them as needed. That's still OOP. OOP
is useful and a standard.

>
i dont remember i learned a c++ a bit in about year 2001 or so (i dont
even remember) and then droipped the learning noticing how crap it is
>
i remember tose inheritance herarhies buit being deeply idiotic and
based on misunderstanding of fundamental things
>
>
same with those builtin c++ spaghetti with new objest and
pointers... this c++ OOP is indeed just a monster sphagetti
>

i remember a movei die herd 2 adair and then a 'simon' says imo
with memoprable voice  (fort knox) "its for tourists!", close woice i would say: "c++? Its for idiots!" ;c

all those pointers ale nonsense.. the entities with functions are okay
but visibility by pointers is deeply idiotic if yu get some entity you
need to use simply add them like
>
Sccreen screen1, screen2;
Ship ship[100];
>
then just call its methods and more... no idiotic sphagetti
>
>