Re: on named blocks concept

Janis Papanagnou pisze:

On 07.11.2024 18:58, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 07.11.2024 um 18:47 schrieb fir:

[...]

>
I think you declare a lot of things you don't understand as crap.
>

i remember tose inheritance herarhies buit being deeply idiotic and
based on misunderstanding of fundamental things

 (You haven't shown in your posts in any way that you'd have
understood even the most "fundamental things" [of OO]. That's
why I'm somewhat irritated by your heated relentless comments.)
 

well i told about
1) "sphagetti monster" which is inside c++ or part of c++
(this monster is made by pointers of "new" objects and the
sphagetti of its connection - where its all idiotic as normally
you simply place entities [[liek structures in c but also may have
'member functions' thise member functions are okay]] and the antities
see themselves - no idiotic sphagetti
2) the idiotic not understanding what subtype is and what super-type is
(subtyope is any combination of fields of given type, or at least any that makes sense in given program) ...supertype is in turn extensuion of
given type by new fields or functions
What i say here comes from unserstanding this ...so who is not understanding that? its not me
(ofc its not quite popular knowledge as i am the oryginal author of
this remarks on those structural errors, it not comes from reading in net on this but from my ovn (and many) deeper insights on this

Did the code samples you inspected (and that obviously repelled
you) have maybe been written by the "wrong [unknowing] people"?
 Since you may not have understood the advantages of OO concepts,
have you taken some effort to try to understand it?
 I started OO with Simula 67 at a time where the term "OO" wasn't
widely used, let alone hyped - I think it wasn't even coined at
these days but I'm not sure about it. But the advantages of OO
programming was immediately obvious to me. - I think it needs
some affiliation and openness. Not being spoiled exclusively by
other programming principles might help as well.
 

>
Inheritance is not used often, mostly with large class libraries,
but when it is used it makes sense.

 Where do you get that impression from that it's not used often?
Or "mostly" with large class libraries? - I certainly made other
observations and had a very different experience.
 Whenever I'm operating in an OO language context I'm using its
concepts. Even simple things can be organized advantageously
with OO language concepts, inheritance and polymorphism (based
on inheritance). If you don't make use of its basic concept you
can as well abandon it; for modularity, information hiding, or
abstraction there's other ([supposedly] "simpler") languages.
 

[...]

[...]

 Janis