OOP

Why do we need it, when we've associative lists and hashtables?


my_hash["type_tag"] = "Dog".

And no OOP required.

>>10
OOP is rightfully on the decline.
Good to hear, because OOP is based on jewish Set Theory (classes are sets), so Set Theory must be wrong, from which follows that jews are wrong and deserved their place in gas chamber.

>>9
In dynamically and duck typed languages like FIOC, FFOC (aka LUA), and so, class instance member lookups are implemented with associative data structures anyway, so it's no different than doing it manually.
Nope. Lua and Python use "metaclasses", which are intended to simulate mathematical sets. And math is a pseudoscience.

>>14
But >>13 is right. The idea of OOP classes is to simulate mathematics, which fundamentally wrong. And when foundation is wrong, you building'll collapse, as collapses OOP. The Right Thing is to construct entities evolutionary, without classes. Like IRL evolution takes two Dogs and syntheses third dog, directly from cells of its parents.

>>15
That's not "evolution," that hereditary.  Learn the goddamn difference.

And, for the record, I'd also rather not write programs that simulate the possibility of a desired existence based on ten millions years running time (even if we scale that down by clockspeed).

>>16
That is EVOLUTION. Two dogs can create third only when they're successful (chewed on some ugly jew). And this jew can't create a child, because his pseudoscientific theory was exposed and he was feed to the dogs.

>>16
>based on ten millions years running time
In some cases evolution can go into singularity and adapt pretty fast. This is, for example, how man made dog from wolf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_silver_fox

>>17
Evolution is a product evaluation.  Hereditary can give you an eye color and your child a different eye color, and so forth down the genetic line, within a pool of possible colors available to your Punnett square.  Evolution would be a shift from this system to one where, for example, eye color is always blue for a specific, collective reason.

>>18
I would argue that's not evolution as it loses the true sense of what qualifies an environmental condition as "important" to foster or compensate for, the weights and checks of growing genetics, but an all too easy counter-argument is that humans are the environment to which response is being given.  All that matters, I guess, outside of the realm of morality, is whether two tame silver foxes, in breeding, reliably produce what will functionally be a tame silver fox kit.

>>19
I would argue that's not evolution as it loses the true sense of what qualifies an environmental condition
Human's interference is an environmental condition. Environmental conditions were changed, fox species changed with them. Same happends in computing: software is guided by environment.


(let ((*fox-environment* (cons 'human-interference *fox-environment*)))
  ...
  )

>>23
NOW we're getting somewhere!

>>24

(eval fox :environment *fox-environment*)

>>13
you ruined yet another thread. I hate jews just as much as you, but classes have nothing to do with sets. Associative data structures are more akin to sets.

>>26
His bullshit is irrelevant to /prog/ anyway. We're programmers, we deal with finite amounts of resources anyway. If he wants to troll, he should just go on /sci/.

>>26
Classes are sets. For example, class NaturalNumber will be equivalent to set of all natural numbers. Classes are abstract, that is what makes them evil and jewish. Jews love to fool people with their buzzwords and abstractions.

>>27
How much memory turing-machine has?

>>28
Turing machine is simply a mathematical construct used by Turing to do a few proofs. This is a programming board. Unless you see a thread about the halting problem, kindly shut up.

And if you think that classes are good for modelling reality, then, please, show us IRL a class Cat of all cats.

>>29
This is a programming board.
Colleges require every programmer to believe in Set Theory. So if you aren't a college dropout, you must be pretty religious person. Have voice of Infinity in your head, already?

Turing machine is a construct
From what this buzzword is constructed? From more buzzwords?

few proofs
Proofs of what? Of more buzzwords?

>>30
Artist depiction: http://vintagepostcardshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/433-alfred-mainzer-cats-school-vintage-postcard.jpg

Realistic depiction: a combination of zoo feline-centric attractions for sets and natural museum fossil exhibits to do source inheritance.  The hard part is using constructors to build our own cats.

>>29
Please, try to ignore troll posts.

>>33
g

>>28
Seriously, why do you even bother to post, assuming you are always the same "anti-set" guy?
Abstraction is the heart of engineering and science.
You are a dumbass. Maybe /b/ would suit you better.

>>35
"abstraction" is a buzzword. Like "God", "class" or "scalable enterprise solution". Enjoy your fucking "CObject" God.

>>36
This will blow your mind, buzzword is also an abstraction.

>>37
Nope. We call "buzzword" anything without connection to reality. When there is a word, but no associated process.

Labelling a term a "buzzword" pejoratively implies that it is now used pretentiously and inappropriately by individuals with little understanding of its actual meaning who are most interested in impressing others by making their discourse sound more esoteric, obscure, and technical than it otherwise would be.
That is exactly how term "God" behaves.

>>37
Try to ignore troll posts.

Buzzwords
QUANTUM COMPUTING

You have just officially been wow'ed.

>>41
CUANTUM QOMPUTING

CONDOM CUMSPEWING

HI IM A PROGRAMMER IM 13 I CAN PROGRAM CALCULATOR SORRY FOR MY INGLISH IM NOT INGLISH I CREATED A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR HERE IT IS 0.25414043516876306