|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
... a lot like trying to explain to lay people that the word you just used is
not the actual <thing> they think you just said but instead a conceptual
short cut to another thing which also happens to be mostly conceptual..[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
..and it is important to remember that for all the good description (and it *IS*
good) of OOP given in the parent most of the things mentioned: inheritance,
encapsulation, invoking, ancestor, tree hierarchy, collections, hiding,
private, protected , object member, class, polymorphism, templates etc are
absolutely not what you think they are. they are all conceptual short cuts for a
simplified understanding of complex processes and methods that occur 'under the
hood' of the black box, or the expressive process of articulating ideas through
source code.
They are all conveniences to allow programmers to talk to each other and make
some kind of sense, they are jargon of the trade and bear little or no
relationship to the actual natural language meaning of the same words let alone
any legal definition that may hold sway.
if you apply the natural language definitions it kind of gives you enough of a
hint to comprehend the how so you can proceed without actually having to know
anything about the what or why or be concerned with the details.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
What the parent describes is not polymorphism. Polymorphism is having two
functions that have the same name and the same parameters in related classes.
For example, the FurryMammal class could have a makeNoise() method that, for a
Cat, called meow(), and for a Dog, called bark(). Then if you have a (reference
or pointer to a) FurryMammal, you can call makeNoise(), and it will do the right
thing for the type of FurryMammal that it is.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
