Le 30.08.2013 15:11, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
On 8/30/2013 2:00 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
Okay, so, for you, supporting inheritance and polymorphism at
run-time
rather than at compile time is not sufficiently OOP.
And I don't particularly care about that distinction.
I'm fine with ending the discussion there.
--
Joel Rees
You keep claiming it can be done, but have done nothing to show how
it can be done. So all I can assume is you cannot support your
statement, because it can't be done.
Don't worry - I've heard similar statements over the years from
others who don't understand OOP. None of them have been able to
support their statements, either.
Jerry
Here is what you defined for inheritance and polymorphism:
============
3. Inheritance: the ability to extend an existing class, to provide
additional or different functionality via additional messages in the
derived class. Inheritance takes advantage of the similarities in the
base an derived classes. The base class has no knowledge of the
derived
class and, in fact, may not even know it is being used as a base class.
Additional classes can be derived from the original base and derived
classes with no change to the existing code. This cannot be done in C.
4. Polymorphism: the ability to send messages to a derived class object
when you believe you have an object of the base class. This allows
functions to operate on any class in the derived hierarchy, while only
having to worry about the messages defined in the base class. This
also
cannot be done in C.
============
Note that we agree on those definitions.
Now, can you explain why the link I provided does not meet those
requirements?
For now, except saying to everyone that 1) they do not understand OOP
and 2) you teach it from 25 years, you never gave any example of things
we could do in any OOP language that we could not make in C according to
your definition of OOP (on which I agree, again) not you destroyed the
source code pointed by the link I gave.
Oh, and, you also said something which implied that I said that SDL is
a language, which is something I never said. Well, to be more precise,
the functions and structures I referred to where obviously owned by
libsdl1.2-dev (to write the Debian package's name) which is a library.
So, you avoided replying to real arguments with yours, and you even
used a straw man to discredit me?
I will refrain my envy of irony here, instead I will be direct: I have
seen people which were using a lot the argument of being older than me
to convince me that I was wrong. They never convinced reality, when what
they did failed, why my solutions were working fine. Wisdom and
knowledge are not only a matter of age and teaching. Including teachers.
This is the reason why I rarely accept an argument if it is not
correctly built: explanation + example, so that it can be countered or
not.
While I am at it, let me say you that, a machine, in common language
(I'm not very good with mathematics), have internal states that you do
not need to know to use it's function. I have no idea about all the
states of my car when I am driving. For example, I do not know, or need
to know, the states of the spark plugs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a505a5a67ef41d7132e262f4cf0e2...@neutralite.org