31 Oct 08
2 edits
The limited exposure I have had to object oriented programming design kind of made me intrigued as a Theist.
I saw some parallels in it to a perceived intelligent design of biological systems.
In general building logical algorithims reminds me a lot of how nature works.
Hamilton is the only confessed expert in OOP so far. So he will debunk my attempts to draw parellels between Object Oriented Design in Computer Programming and what I perceive as an Intelligence behind the development of life.
Maybe I'll pick up some programming tips in the process.
My birth, was a instance in the execution of what appears like a Method - "Birth". How is it that Birth came to be so useful a method that it could be instantiated for so many thousands upon thousands of other creatures?
How could this happen without forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillI work in software and know something about object oriented programming too.
The limited exposure I have had to object oriented programming design kind of made me intrigued as a Theist.
I saw some parallels in it to a perceived intelligent design of biological systems.
In general building logical algorithims reminds me a lot of how nature works.
Hamilton is the only confessed expert in OOP so far. So he will debunk my at ...[text shortened]... thout forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
Methods can't be instantiated - objects can. Objects have methods.
According to your analogy "Birth" would be a method on the object of the mother with a return value of you? Or would that be a side-effect to the method.
I'm really not seeing a definite parallel as you have explained it - at least not one that implies that just because objects in OOP are designed the life would have to be.
How is this supposed parallel any different than the other ones?
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawn===================================
I work in software and know something about object oriented programming too.
Methods can't be instantiated - objects can. Objects have methods.
According to your analogy "Birth" would be a method on the object of the mother with a return value of you? Or would that be a side-effect to the method.
I'm really not seeing a definite parallel as you ...[text shortened]... life would have to be.
How is this supposed parallel any different than the other ones?
Methods can't be instantiated - objects can. Objects have methods.
=======================================
I see. Then my particular birth is the instance of the abstract method Birth ?
Isn't thee an abstract class or something which cannot be instantiated but you can have a hierarchy of entitites which inherit the attributes of that entity ?
What is the parellel to Birth and the birth of a gerbil, the birth of a whale, the birth of a dolphin, the birth of a blue bird, the birth of a german shepherd ?
Don't these various births inherit attributes or add on additional attributes to the abstract Birth?
Is Birth the class ? I need a refresher on Class. Method, Object using Birth as an example.
================================
According to your analogy "Birth" would be a method on the object of the mother with a return value of you? Or would that be a side-effect to the method.
================================
Let me think about that.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillJesus, you need more than a refresher. You need to start from scratch.
Is Birth the class ? I need a refresher on Class. Method, Object using Birth as an example.
I'd sincerely recommend that you consider taking up a different profession altogether. OOP is not for those of feeble mind.
31 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHere's Scribbles with his few.
Jesus, you need more than a refresher. You need to start from scratch.
I'd sincerely recommend that you consider taking up a different profession altogether. OOP is not for those of feeble mind.
Scribbles, technology constantly and rapidly changes.
Keeping up with the changes is not easy. I entered the field decades ago. Frankly, with computer science it is not unusual that the rapid changes eventually pass you by.
Now, does your little quip mean that you can explain it? If not then, be your usual self of few relevant words and let us discuss it.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillLet's say you eventually create an OO system that would mimic a biological system.
The limited exposure I have had to object oriented programming design kind of made me intrigued as a Theist.
I saw some parallels in it to a perceived intelligent design of biological systems.
In general building logical algorithims reminds me a lot of how nature works.
Hamilton is the only confessed expert in OOP so far. So he will debunk my at ...[text shortened]... thout forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
Just what are you trying to accomplish?
Since you're having trouble getting started:
You could have a class of type Human.
Each instantiation of that class would be a person.
A Birth method for female Humans could accept a male Human and return an object of type Human.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI am a full time computer programmer, and all programming these days is object oriented (OK 99.99% of it anyway).
How could this happen without forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
I think that if you want to understand the Theory of Evolution, you are far better off reading a book on the subject than trying to draw analogies with other subjects that you are clearly not that well versed in either. Or ask us the relevant questions, there are always plenty of people in this forum more than willing to explain the concepts of evolution.
31 Oct 08
A Birth method for female Humans could accept a male Human and return an object of type Human.[/b]The type/class would be "Human", the method name should be "giveBirth",
which returns a Collection of Human. The Birth would be just an event.
If you generalize to "Animal", you get a covariance problem.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by afxlol. Like Jaywill isn't having enough problems with the extremely elementary.
The type/class would be "Human", the method name should be "giveBirth",
which returns a Collection of Human. The Birth would be just an event.
If you generalize to "Animal", you get a covariance problem.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead…there are always plenty of people in this forum more than willing to explain the concepts of evolution...…
I am a full time computer programmer, and all programming these days is object oriented (OK 99.99% of it anyway).
I think that if you want to understand the Theory of Evolution, you are far better off reading a book on the subject than trying to draw analogies with other subjects that you are clearly not that well versed in either. Or ask us the releva ...[text shortened]... re always plenty of people in this forum more than willing to explain the concepts of evolution.
- for example, me 🙂 ( -that is assuming that I think the listener is truly interested and haven‘t already made up his mind up that it is wrong before he has even understood it! -else, I don't think I bother to put much effort into it)
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillThe first thing you must do if you want to understand evolution is to temporarily stop trying to challenge it by throwing all your preconceived notions about what does or does not require forethought etc.
How could this happen without forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
Simply look at the basic concept of Natural Selection without applying it to anything in real life or asking whether it really happens or whether or not it conflicts with your religion.
Take it in stages:
Ask yourself whether farmers can breed new livestock by careful selection.
Ask yourself whether creatures in their natural environment are subject to selection by their environment.
Ask yourself whether there are actual limits to what that process can achieve.
Understand the processes, understand various known examples.
I see too many people on these forums who put up a mental block and refuse to see past it. They realize that some of the concepts are quite clearly valid, but they decide apparently arbitrarily that certain things cannot be explained by evolution. For example I have heard people say that evolution can lead to new breeds of dog, but it cannot produce new species. Other times they will say it cannot produce new organs. But when you get right down to it, they can never give a reason for such beliefs other than incredulity. But it is a form of incredulity that is self imposed ie you can explain how it works, but they will refuse to see.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Methods can't be instantiated - objects can. Objects have methods.
=======================================
I see. Then my particular birth is the instance of the abstract method Birth ?
Isn't thee an abstract class or something which cannot be instantiated but you can have a hierarchy of entitites whic ...[text shortened]... ffect to the method.
================================[/b]
Let me think about that.[/b]
I see. Then my particular birth is the instance of the abstract method Birth ?
As I said, there isn't an instance of a method, only an instance of an object.
Isn't thee an abstract class or something which cannot be instantiated but you can have a hierarchy of entitites which inherit the attributes of that entity ?
An abstract class cannot be instantiated, yes. You can inherit from an abstract class. You could develop your program that simulates this in a number of ways. Animal could be an abstract class that you have subclasses that inherit from it - say "Mammals" and "Reptiles". Then you could have subclasses of Mammals - say "Cows" and "Humans". Of course this would be evidence of common descent no?
What is the parellel to Birth and the birth of a gerbil, the birth of a whale, the birth of a dolphin, the birth of a blue bird, the birth of a german shepherd ?
Like I mentioned above, the object that represents a bird would override the "Child GiveBirth()" method to have its own behavior.
Don't these various births inherit attributes or add on additional attributes to the abstract Birth?
I think this is where your analogy breaks down a bit. There are a number of ways you might design a software mock-up.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillNOT in any implied sceme of preception! This theory fails to take into consideration weather you are referring OF the thing itself or IN the thing itself.
The limited exposure I have had to object oriented programming design kind of made me intrigued as a Theist.
I saw some parallels in it to a perceived intelligent design of biological systems.
In general building logical algorithims reminds me a lot of how nature works.
Hamilton is the only confessed expert in OOP so far. So he will debunk my at ...[text shortened]... thout forethought, design, and the ability for Evolution to look ahead at a desired outcome ?
😏
05 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnbetter said you multiply inherit mother class and father class.
I work in software and know something about object oriented programming too.
Methods can't be instantiated - objects can. Objects have methods.
According to your analogy "Birth" would be a method on the object of the mother with a return value of you? Or would that be a side-effect to the method.
I'm really not seeing a definite parallel as you ...[text shortened]... life would have to be.
How is this supposed parallel any different than the other ones?
i guess you could say that the birth method is the constructor of your class. edit: the constructor of the class of you.
05 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadcommon don't be such a party crasher, let him discuss a subject he doesn't understand (oop) in correlation with a subject he has little and unreliable information about while trying to disprove another subject he doesn't understand(evolution)
I am a full time computer programmer, and all programming these days is object oriented (OK 99.99% of it anyway).
I think that if you want to understand the Theory of Evolution, you are far better off reading a book on the subject than trying to draw analogies with other subjects that you are clearly not that well versed in either. Or ask us the releva ...[text shortened]... re always plenty of people in this forum more than willing to explain the concepts of evolution.
he might learn a few things. and we would have done our christian duty of helping him out. i am sorry, i would have done my christian duty, you are simply an atheist non-believing sinner who will go to hell for believing the blasphemy that is evolution.
PS: btw did you know that OOP is POO in certain languages?😀