Well, for the knowledgeably ignorant among us... what the heck is
'object oriented' programming anyway. All the code looks like code to
me, and other than having a few more sub-routines I don't understand the
purpose or design of... what's changed other than standardizing a few
protocols across
Phil Henshaw wrote:
Learning in an endless classroom where the teacher
give out % increases in homework every day, however, tends to
eventually destabilize.
Teacher gonna grade it all?
nature has a real easy method of grading...
Badly engineered things break, and
Here's a couple of sites that could be worth checking out Phil:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=object+oriented+programmingbtnG=Google+Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
Robert
On 6/2/07, Phil Henshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, for the knowledgeably
Sounds neat, and amazingly inexpensive too! I couldn't tell from the
blurbs which side of 'the great debate' they fall on though. That a
'diagram' is at the center of design has long been a matter of popular
awareness in the tales of the 'napkin sketch' that informed the design
of many a great
I don't seem to be receiving all of the messages on this thread, which makes
it a bit difficult to follow who said what. It appears from the below that
somebody (Marcus? Surely not!) was grumping about OOP as an ABM
implementation framework.
Agents in an ABM are (or should be*) software objects
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:09:05 -0600, Marcus G. Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Prof David West wrote:
As an unmitigated object bigot I would claim that there is nothing in
agents (or aspects for that matter) that did not exist in objects as
objects were supposed to be.
Ideally, agents ought
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:09:05 -0600, Marcus G. Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Prof David West wrote:
As an unmitigated object bigot I would claim that there is nothing in
agents (or aspects for that matter) that did not exist in objects as
objects were supposed to be.
Ideally, agents ought
Rather than attempt a definition, per se, consider when and where you
can observe differences between OO and say procedural programming.
At the level of post compilation / interpretation instructions -
none, can't be.
At the level of a single statement or expression - very minimal,
That WIKI definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming will leave you
confused if youre learning OO for the first time.
Heres a hard physical-sciences analogy:
* In physics, you have Statics and Dynamics.
* In biology, you have Anatomy and Physiology.
*
Hello FRIAM community,
My name is dave west. Some relevant factoids about me:
My undergraduate education was in Asian Philosophy (mostly Buddhism
and Taoism and their intersection) and Mysticism at Macalester
College in St. Paul Minn.
I have been a professional software developer
Douglas Roberts wrote:
Agents in an ABM are (or should be*) software objects that correlate
to their real-world counterparts at a level of resolution that is
defined by the requirements of the problem to be solved by the
simulation. [..]
As a practical matter, most object oriented
Prof David West wrote:
Objects should be able to interact with bare hardware and not rely on OS
or other environments - like the Smalltalk image.
With the resurgence of virtualized instruction sets, e.g. Java and .NET,
and good hardware/software support via VMware, Parallels, KVM, and Xen,
re: performance. Dave Thomas' company Object Technology International
developed Smalltalk technology for embedded systems with real time
performance equal to C code. He sold OTI to IBM and his technology
became Visual Age Smalltalk, Va-Java, and Eclipse with another division
of IBM utilizing
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 01:37:02PM -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Fortran 2003 seems like it could be a fine programming language for
agent models. It has all the common OOP features. An argument for
Fortran, I suppose, would be superior numerical performance. I doubt
it would be
14 matches
Mail list logo
