Re: OOP
- From: HMS Beagle <bgates@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:19:25 -0400
On 18 Sep 2005 23:28:27 -0700, makc.the.great@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Like I was going to. The problem is that tools are never perfect. So
>was old-fashion functional approach, so is OOP. My question is kind of
>"what next" question, and "how do we get to that next".
Yes. Good question.
A fellow colleague of mine at Ohio State had this idea of very very
(..very) high-level code. Literally telling the computer to "sort
this list" and so on.
Find the largest element of L, and subtract from it the smallest
element of K;
...and so on. Of course you don't have to go completely into natural
language processing to get this Super-high-level compiler going.
There could be certain rudimentary sentences the computer would
understand it might look something like this in the end.
sort{L, "criteria" };
Where "criteria" is simply the name of the member variable in L that
is compared with its (built-in) comparison function. At this high a
level of coding, you will not fuss over differences between int, long
int, and double and so on. There would be some losses from what you
gain in programming ease. Namely, the core code behind all this
instantiated embeddedness would run very slowly.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: DARPA Grand Challenge
- Next by Date: Re: OOP
- Previous by thread: Re: OOP
- Next by thread: Re: OOP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|