Objects

[x]

I can only speak for myself, Gnome and Eq, but none of us were very surprised to learn that our simplistic card based development systems used dumbed down commands and features from the high level languages they were built in, whilst retaining the names they were based on.

I've never met a kid with a cork-pop riffle who couldn't understand why people referred to it as a gun, when clearly it was a toy. In the same way, this list of variables represents an object.

AHHH SYNTACTICAL ERRORS EVERYWHERE.. CANT... FUNCTION... NEED... CORRECT... TERMINOLOGY.....

Sorry for being so unnecessarily anal, but this mimics the functionality of a struct not an object! Which was my point by the way. I wish to clarify that my problem is not that this doesn't have advanced OOP features.

[Silverwind]

is a castle not a structure as much as its an object? Wouldn't it make sense to name this using the correct programming paradigm?

Clearly to you it would, as you think it would be sensible if the term was correct with other languages, but I think it would be more sensible if the term was immediately understandable, and I think object is considerably more obvious than struct.

Nobody's wrong here, there's just a disagreement on what's sensible.

Please read my posts before you criticize me for a moot point.  

I don't mean to criticize you, and I did read your posts.

[x]

Clearly to you it would, as you think it would be sensible if the term was correct with other languages, but I think it would be more sensible if the term was immediately understandable, and I think object is considerably more obvious than struct.

Nobody's wrong here, there's just a disagreement on what's sensible.

I don't mean to criticize you, and I did read your posts.

Well if we're going to call it an object, we not take my aforementioned advice and allow methods and data hiding so it actually IS syntactically correct fake OOP?

[Silverwind]

x, it is you that doesn't understand! I'm talking about real objects, not the programming sense of the word. I'm talking the chair your sitting on, the glass of milk you're sipping, and the clock that's just made me aware of how late I am! Fare thee well!

[x]

I agree, no-one is wrong, we're just arguing semantics I guess.

x, it is you that doesn't understand! I'm talking about real objects, not the programming sense of the word. I'm talking the chair your sitting on, the glass of milk you're sipping, and the clock that's just made me aware of how late I am! Fare thee well!

I know that! I'm just saying that seems silly too me since these things are also structures are they not? So we may as well use the correct programming term! Although the term object does make a little more sense to be fair, I just can't stand incorrect terminology, which is a fairly odd character flaw I must admit. And good day too you sir, sleep well and try not too lucid dream, I hear its very tiring  

[Tireas Dragon]

I think I understand what the argument is. Silverwind is programming the chair by saying their is a chair there and it has these features. x is arguing that the chair is an object with these chair features like all other chairs in the chair object.

[Gan]

If it helps, I just realized you can put artificial objects inside artificial objects.

I should probably make an example game that uses this.

[x]

I think I understand what the argument is. Silverwind is programming the chair by saying their is a chair there and it has these features. x is arguing that the chair is an object with these chair features like all other chairs in the chair object.

Not even close haha.

@Gandalf: Yeh, pretty cool right? I posted about that before, it means 2d arrays are possible, which might make a grid system more elegant.

[WarHampster]

I think I understand what the argument is. Silverwind is programming the chair by saying their is a chair there and it has these features. x is arguing that the chair is an object with these chair features like all other chairs in the chair object.

THE ARGUMENT: Chairs are things with chair-like properties that are shared by all other chairs within a chair, recursing to infinity.

[x]

THE ARGUMENT: Chairs are things with chair-like properties that are shared by all other chairs within a chair, recursing to infinity.

Which then causes a stack overflow crashing GMG.

[Gan]

And my brain.

[GMG Kurt]

I agree, no-one is wrong, we're just arguing semantics I guess.


I know that! I'm just saying that seems silly too me since these things are also structures are they not? So we may as well use the correct programming term! Although the term object does make a little more sense to be fair, I just can't stand incorrect terminology, which is a fairly odd character flaw I must admit. And good day too you sir, sleep well and try not too lucid dream, I hear its very tiring  

I would like to point out that in C++ both structs and classes are exactly the same. class is just a C++ struct in which the default access to it's variables is private instead of public, like a struct.

Class is just formally used for objects that'll take into consideration encapsulation, polymorphism, abstraction, and hierarchy.

and although the C++ struct can hold functions, in good programming practice it doesn't. That is left to objects, because of practice, and the added functionally of the copy-constructor, printing constructor, and all the rest.

[x]

I would like to point out that in C++ both structs and classes are exactly the same. class is just a C++ struct in which the default access to it's variables is private instead of public, like a struct.

Class is just formally used for objects that'll take into consideration encapsulation, polymorphism, abstraction, and hierarchy.

and although the C++ struct can hold functions, in good programming practice it doesn't. That is left to objects, because of practice, and the added functionally of the copy-constructor, printing constructor, and all the rest.

You assumed that an object is a data type that holds both data and functions. Thats a common incorrect assumption. The definition of an object is something that is capable of data hiding, polymorphism and inheritance. Thats the important difference between a struct and a class.

Otherwise whats the point of C++? Since C has structs...

Edit: Nice grave digging.

[GMG Kurt]

You assumed that an object is a data type that holds both data and functions. Thats a common incorrect assumption. The definition of an object is something that is capable of data hiding, polymorphism and inheritance. Thats the important difference between a struct and a class.

Otherwise whats the point of C++? Since C has structs...

Edit: Nice grave digging.

thanks grave digging is my specialty

a C++ struct is way different than a C struct. It has added functionalities.
You just compared a C struct to a C++ class.
I was comparing C++ struct to a C++ class

[x]

thanks grave digging is my specialty

a C++ struct is way different than a C struct. It has added functionalities.
You just compared a C struct to a C++ class.
I was comparing C++ struct to a C++ class

Well thats an annoying and pointless comparison. Lets compare a sea with an ocean while we're at it, thats just as frustratingly niggly and irrelevant.

If you look at the ASM generated, a struct and a class in C++ is the same thing from a machines point of view.