Object Oriented Political Theory

I have an idea that I've had bouncing around in my head for a long while, and want to flesh it out a bit. I call it Object-Oriented Politics, or Object-Oriented Political Theory. If this has been proposed before, I am unaware of it (but feel free to link me).

The idea I got from just basic programming theory. In programming (I'm no expert mind you) there are two major schools of thought - procedural programming and object oriented programming. With procedural programming everything is in a list and it runs to the end, and that is your program. But with object oriented programming you take an object, describe it, how it interacts and what it does, and then you run it in your program with other objects.

What if we took object-oriented programming and applied it to politics?

I propose that we reject the left-right spectrum, the 4 way compass, and horseshoe theory entirely. They are extremely limited and flawed. In their current form they are used by elites to limit political discussion, and it works. People are saying "rightist" and "leftist" and conflating everything within that dichotomy rather than seeing an idea for what it does or does not do. Instead of describing a political system or idea based on what it can or can not do effectively, or on its merits and flaws, it is simply boiled down to where it fits on the spectrum.

With Object Oriented Political Theory we treat a political idea or ideology like we would describe a program. Flaws are like bugs that either have to be worked around or fixed. Its strengths are what makes the program shine. It does or does not do something. This provides a logical structure that is simple to start and is scalable.

Instead of just describing a political idea by just giving some basics and sticking it on a severely limited and fallacious dichotomy (and arguing about whether it is a right or left wing idea), we have a means of describing something in detail, and possibly even account for bias simply for the fact that all you do is describe what it does and does not do. You would start with small things, and combine them to make larger things. This allows for one to describe simple concepts in simple statements, and then describe how a whole system works by combining them. This could also potentially give one a framework to check for problems.

This would also allow for modifications to a system to be described with ease. If a group or individual finds something that they either don't like or find it doesn't work, you can change it, put it back in the whole, and as you combine each individual idea you can test whether it all works, or if further modification is needed.

For example, let's examine some aspects of Communism. I'll give several basic statements, and combine them to make a whole idea. Then I can modify it and show it is still Communism.

1 - All resources must be shared equally

2 - All individuals must contribute all produced resources to the collective resources

3 - All individuals are entitled to the same amount of produced resources as everyone else

4 - Social class does not exist

5 - Industry and cities should spread out so that the city is indistinguishable from the countryside

Now let's form some objects with these statements by combining them, and observing how they interact.

All individuals must contribute all produced resources to a shared pool of resources, that everyone is entitled to draw the same amount from. All individuals are the same, therefore all resources must be shared equally. All industry and cities should be spread out equally, and all resources should follow.

Now you can see a part of the whole of how Communism works. You have an object that can interact with other objects and form a whole program.

Instead of viewing it as a right-left issue, we now see it for what it does and doesn't do. I think something like this being pushed into mainstream political thought would be a good idea. It would encourage people to view things for what they are, and not just put them on a stupid spectrum. I get there is a need to simplify things. However, the current system of the spectrum (and the attempt to fix this with the compass) are flawed in how limited they are. This makes it so an idea is now simple, and at the same time complex. You can also see what makes a system good or bad, and have a foundation to explain why it is. You can either take corrective action, or refuse it entirely and provide specific reasons why inside of a system that - if accepted - is easily understood.

If you want a TL;DR, there is no TL;DR. This point is to not condense everything right away, and to encourage people to see something for what it is. This thread is not for you.

Thoughts

Other urls found in this thread:

harmful.cat-v.org
github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/src/main/org/codehaus/groovy/runtime/ArrayUtil.java
codenewbie.org/blogs/object-oriented-programming-vs-functional-programming
9front.org/who/uriel/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
stackoverflow.com/questions/2330942/java-variable-number-or-arguments-for-a-method)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No kike post

I love your idea.
You are a rational person able to also see the big picture.

If I may post a related idea here about how the human being is a set of objects that interact to make a whole, specifically genes.

Genes create the organism.
The organism in every way is built from the genes it contains.
Human genetics have given us many answers to our ancestry and evolutionary history.
Genes exist that alone provide enhanced neurological formation and function.
Genetic interactions of multiple genes provide various mechanisms that are redundant and or not necessary for basic life. However when functional allow for high intelligence, superb immunity, physical peaks.

The interaction of population groups that have for generations lived separately but can still form hybrids can be destructive. Most pairings of closely related species that can still breed together are not viable. Either the offspring die before birth or are unfit for their habitat shortly after birth, thus providing lower fertility than either of the parents. For organisms that do not rely on intelligence as their primary function sometimes beneficial results can form. Most of the time when the offspring do live to adulthood however, the hybrids either cease to maintain a stable fertility thus even resultant offspring dwindle in number, or they breed back into parent populations.
When a species like the human being forms hybrids between distant population groups those sets of genes that are not needed for the basic functions of life but provide benefits nonetheless can be lost. The configuration of all the necessary genes to make a gene network provide a benefit it had evolved to do may not recombine in any future generation due to loss of genes and mismatches.
Human populations like every other group of organisms adapt to their environment when those unfit for the environment breed less or die without any offspring and those most capable provide more offspring to future generations. The results are that the next generation is more adapted to a particular environment. Over many generations in a particular habitat of this planet there can be some genes that are not activated without particular stress (droughts, population density, temporary dietary changes). Inside the organism there will be a lack or surplus of a particular vitamin or an imbalance in the various signalling molecules that when passing certain lows or highs cause a chain reaction of changes in the organism. These mechanisms can be entirely lost when distant populations that experienced far different stress breed together.

With current knowledge we can trace down from any individuals genome their most likely ancestry not down to continent but as precisely as local regions of a particular subset of a continent ex southern coastline of India or northwestern Europe.

The various interacting disciplines of sciences that affect genetic studies have been rapidly advancing in the recent decade and will continue to do so in the near future. Computer science allows for vast statistical analysis giving information that was inaccessible in the past due to the sheer volume of data to be analyzed. We already have all the tools to manipulate DNA very precisely and test the results within short timeframes of weeks and days. We can change particular human genes in living humans upwards of 80% efficiently (all cells in the body) for the price ranges in 3-4 digit USD.

I would throw out the program of communism entirely because it denies these facts I have outlined here.

However Nationalism of any variety interacts with these facts fluidly and functionally.

Object-Oriented Programming is a cancer, why would it be any different in political theory?

This is a very nice way to describe this. I like it. It works very well.


Elaborate?

It's harmful

No. Applying OO to every problem regardless of its suitability is a cancer. There are problems for which OO is an elegant solution (e.g. GUI desktops, modelling problems, games), and there are problems for which OO is an unnecessary burden (e.g. data processing, video codecs, etc.). The problem is using OO everywhere regardless of its suitability, not the OO paradigm itself.

Harmful

Productive, if done correctly. Else… bloat, and therefore Harmful.

Usually bloated, therefore Harmful

So for nationalism there are a few small parts that I agree with you make no sense on the political compass charts and lines.
For example, government doesn't need to regulate and tax businesses and their transactions. However, if the business harms the environment, it should be inspected. If the business preys on individuals, it needs to be shut down and so forth.

I've seen this problem come up in debates a lot. Is national socialism necessarily about big government. And you can find examples that could agree it is high on the big government scale or low on near anarchy side. Instead what does the program do?
It protects individuals. It protects the health of the nation. It protects the life all around us that benefit the individuals that make up the nation.
It doesn't need to monitor ideas, and so on.

It's hard to take you seriously, user. You haven't even tried to provide a rationale for your assertions.

harmful.cat-v.org

Everything you know is wrong

Naturally.

Brainlet detected and filtered.

Interesting concept, but I'll stick with Ironmarch's philosophy of you're either in the worldview of truth or you're in the worldview of falsehoods.

The ultimate in Individualist. Do not believe this, New Age, nonsense. It is a ploy to sound smart and cater to your more intellectual side. Do not be persuaded, my brothers. It is just another trick. While it helps to program computers to do our bidding, it is a cold, harsh language. It treats the computer as a slave, doing the bidding of the programmer. It is also very memory inefficient when dealt with at a large scale. Other forms of programming have been developed to deal with real-world situations. OOP is nice in a sandbox (i.e. on paper), but to be quite honest, lacks real teeth when applied to the large-scale problems of providing content on a timely basis.

Believe in Christ.

>harmful.cat-v.org
This is some interesting shit.


We humans already think in OO. We think in concepts which have properties and behaviours.
Perhaps what you want to do is define properties and behaviours of political concepts.

If you become like analmouse or shit like the techducks you get your throats slit.

This is the correct stance. Scientists, whether they are physicists, biochemists, data scientists, etc like to categorize things, it's a profession of autism. Sadly the universe doesn't work that way and there is no unified categorical system or even nomenclature for everything. Being an expert of something is 99% knowing when to use which tool in your kit, not being the best hammerer to ever exist because when you get down to it a hammer is only useful for so much.

The profession that sticks out like a snail is "data scientists" since physicists, biochemists and any fucking other profession except for "cousins of data science do not seek to moralize or catagorize people. It is more like give a monkey a stick and see what it does with it, where as "datascientists" judge the monkey and what it does.
I just say tell you one thing, if we ever find out that you and your niggers used personal data on us we kill you. And for example the addresses the analmouse niggers got on nsa etc, make a map on that because proximity is a good motivation to pay them a visit. And you will be next.

I really like your mindset, it is just like art the wonder about what you wonder about. And i cant wait to express my "artistic gratitude" to your shit.

I was thinking similar recently. What we are in is a war of words, for the most part.
Kikes redefine "family", "woman" "marriage", "culture" so that white is black, and black is white, up is down, and down is up.
Effectively, they are re-ordering procedural malware politics "cultural subversion & degeneracy" and telling you it is now anti-virus politics "socially progressive", when the result of the 'program' is still the same.
This refactoring of politics is known as "Political Correctness" or "Cultural Marxism". We are Holla Forums, we are "Politically Incorrect" for adhering to the natural order of speech, the output of which is always Truth.
The use of OOP Political Theory (OOPPT) side steps all of this, and nullifies any malware politics.
In the long run, expect them to rename classes of political objects with false names - and declare the contents of those classes as private (to hide their malware) however the objects would not return the correct value (Truth) or be able to interact with other objects as expected, thus natively exposing them for what they are (Lies).

The point is my identity politics tranny, that the nomenclature is mostly a result of certain mechanisms beforehand not the other way round.
Du drecks schwuchtel.

No iron cross for you.

>>harmful.cat-v.org
>github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/src/main/org/codehaus/groovy/runtime/ArrayUtil.java
Damn.

The guy that made this.

OOP is obsolete bro. The new paradigm is Functional Programming.

codenewbie.org/blogs/object-oriented-programming-vs-functional-programming

Nope. Games don't need OOP and those who think that spend their days in a shitty game IDE like Unity.
The people who created the paradigm in the first hate what it has turned into. This and also how much the universities push it should key you in as to how it is as cancerous as OP pointed out.
I appreciate your reasonable response but it is entirely overused and abused.
“Sometimes, the elegant implementation is just a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function” (John Carmack).

ITT masturbating first semester CS students who have never written a line of actual code.

...

BUT OP, OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING IS NON-FREE SOFTWARE

GET OUT CIA NIGGER CUCKS

You are closer to describing how things actually are in the world an a very profoundly esoteric level than most of the anons posting of /fringe/. The light will be uncovered for many more to see very soon.. And when you start noticing it you are going to shit your pants.

...

you are very, very wrong, on every count.

Very good idea.

Make it all physically maluable so people can almost see and touch it in their minds. That's one way to break the Jewish black magic

>Nazi!
I do see.

Checked.
Rational organization of thoughts into testable models is the only way to go.

Wtf is that pic and what does it mean ffs. I could only find it here. 9front.org/who/uriel/

OOP can't be used on its own for massive scale, that's literally what databases are for.

Mah nigga. Here's your (you). OP means well but is a greenhorn and needs to lurk for 20 years while thirsting for the truth.

Category theory is the most effective formal language for characterizing the way that humans think about the world (composing things from parts, dividing big things into smaller things). It is like the central dogma of molecular biology, but describes the synthesis and composition of intellectual entities rather than living organisms.

The real beauty is that our thoughts are living things that sexually reproduce within our minds via memetic crossover and mutation. Memes are gametes, capsids, viruses. Minds are wombs, breeding grounds for thoughts. The noosphere is a massive planet-scale habitat for memes, of which a single mind is a mere microbiome.

People don't have ideas. Ideas have people. Revere a great man and emulate him.

ayyy Jung my nigga

You may mean well here user, but trying to think about rhetoric in terms of OOP is not the right coordinate system. It makes younot (you) you, but the proverbial you look like a java faggot.

Why don't physicists use OOP to talk about the universe? Because OOP is gay playdough for bugbois. Physicists use the most precise language we have for explaining OUR PERCEPTION of the known universe. That language is mathematics, which has a foundation in higher-order category theory.

Rhetoric, neurolinguistics, human psychology, group dynamics, etc. are large and surprisingly complex domains. If you want to study them in a unified framework, take the physicist approach and use mathematical languages. OOP is a babby-tier plaything.

I believe that category theory is a manifestation of the genetic code of ideas. We need some smart anons to figure out the sexual crossover and mutation mechanics of ideas in terms of categories.

Shadilay. I used to think Jung was a crackpot. Then I saw what happened over the last few years on the various cesspools of the internet and had an epiphany. Synchronicity is real. Semiotics is incredible. We can sometimes communicate with our kin almost telepathically via semiotics by exploiting heritability as an information transfer mechanism. Information does not travel back in time per se, but rather has a much higher chance of being interpreted with the desired transmitted meaning due to the heritability of our brains and physiology. As an outsider, it can look like magic.

It's like writing a letter to your future children, giving each child a copy of part of the letter. Generations go by. Later, you meet a stranger. You've both read pieces of letters from hundreds of years ago, so you have shared mental context. Uttering a single word can "transmit" far more information at that moment than the information theoretical model would indicate.

See also identical twins who communicate with each other using specialty languages and with almost telepathic levels of subtle cues.

Others have already chimed in, but it needs to be made very clear how wrong this is.
Doesn't exist. Computer science exists. You should learn it.
No. Both of those are simply minor variations on the same form of programming: imperative programming. There are two forms, imperative and declarative. Declarative programming is for people who are not retarded and/or afraid of math. It contains functional programming and logic programming.
No. All object oriented programming does is put shit into containers in poorly thought out ways. Where procedural programs have a OP data structure and some procedures like is_faggot(OP), object oriented programming simply makes those procedures part of the data structure and calls it an "object". So you call the OP->is_faggot() method instead. Literally all this does is obfuscate your code and make it slower, harder to reason about, and more likely to contain and hide bugs. Not a good idea to use it as an inspiration or analogy.

I'm perplexed, what the fuck is this suppose to be? Some times I feel like it must be going over my head when I see pajeet code, I can't make sense of this… He appears to have several overload methods that take a different amount of arguments for different array sizes….

But why doesn't he just do something like Object[] baka = new Object[]{arg0, arg1, arg2.........} and just type in how ever many arguments he wants on one line? Like I said, I always feel like there is something I'm not getting when I see code like that.

I think Deep Blue and Watson proved that direct democracy is the way to go. Both solved problems by taking input from every source possible. The god-emperors of chess and jeopardy were blown away by this model. We're idiots/cowards for wasting money holocausting sandniggers for Israel instead of devising technology to take input from every citizen possible on policy questions.

Well… we are in the sandbox right now, aren't we? I used it because it was the best I could use to explain my idea - a possible way of doing things better. If you have a better idea, I welcome your input.


Older stuff is usually more widely known. Another reason I stuck with OOP for my idea.


I'd like to end up here eventually. A way of organizing thoughts inside of politics in a system that everyone can agree on.

I'm seeing a fair number of shill replies. This also interests me.

systems theory is how shit actually works at larger scales. It's what is used in ecology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

just shoehorn some ecological models if you want to do data-dependent shit. Ecologists have already done all the hard work.

This is how I've been thinking about politics for a little while. It's a better way of thinking about these things.

Oh, since its been a few years, I suppose I should reiterate a few points that might help newfags understand the universe a bit better. There are exactly two concepts you guys need to understand to be able to make generalizations and models.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
>shit works differently as you change scale from subatomic, all the way to complex systems of behavior.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>when shit gets sufficiently complex, you get new properties which are more than the sum of the parts

There, I just broke down all of philosophy and natural law with two fucking concepts. You're welcome.

I agree with him completely. One should favour a non-member interface where possible, because it simplifies program design and reduces coupling. But note that Carmack says sometimes, not always. An OO design lends itself very naturally to modeling problems (e.g. a modeling a game world) because it favors a natural decomposition of the problem space into entities with certain properties and behaviours, i.e. objects. As a built-in feature, OOP languages facilitate operations on heterogeneous collections of objects via polymorphism, which is particularly useful in modeling scenarios (iterate through a collection of different things, call update() on each thing). Of course one can hack together a non-OOP solution using a collection of function pointers, or a use big-ass switch to determine dynamic behaviour at runtime, but the former has the problem that it is no longer type-safe, and the latter is more elegantly (and just as efficiently) achieved using virtual dispatch. That doesn't mean every line of code in every module of a project must be designed according to OOP principles. Doing so leads to slow, bloated, overly complicated designs; the bane of modern "software engineering".
OOP is a tool: use it where it offers demonstrable advantages, avoid it where it doesn't. It really is that simple.

As an addendum, iirc, the reason Josh or Hotwheels fucked up a major part of the site had to do with them not understanding square-cube law (mathematical complexity etc).

I agree with him completely. One should favour a non-member interface where possible, because it simplifies program design and reduces coupling. But note that Carmack says sometimes, not always. An OO design lends itself very naturally to modeling problems (e.g. a modeling a game world) because it favors a natural decomposition of the problem space into entities with certain properties and behaviours, i.e. objects. As a built-in feature, OOP languages facilitate operations on heterogeneous collections of objects via polymorphism, which is particularly useful in modeling scenarios (iterate through a collection of different things, call update() on each thing). Of course one can hack together a non-OOP solution using a collection of function pointers, or a use big-ass switch to determine dynamic behaviour at runtime, but the former has the problem that it is no longer type-safe, and the latter is more elegantly (and just as efficiently) achieved using virtual dispatch. That doesn't mean every line of code in every module of a project must be designed according to OOP principles. Doing so leads to slow, bloated, overly complicated designs; the bane of modern "software engineering".
OOP is a tool: use it where it offers demonstrable advantages, avoid it where it doesn't. It really is that simple.

Fucking Wew

Apologies for double-post. tor hidden service is awfully lagged today.

OOP is newer. Functional programming predates it by nearly 30 years. OOP is just what retards who couldn't understand functional programming made up to try to cope with their inadequacy.

Partially agree
Assuming I'm understanding functional programming correctly, it's fine, but wouldn't it be memory intensive (and processing time intensive due to copying)? E.g., suppose I pass f() a pointer. I modify the dereferenced pointer within f. I return the pointer. Does this still count as a functional method despite the fact that I modified the input (maybe not the pointer, but the pointer value)?
If that still counts a functional programming, then I have no issue with it. However, if it doesn't then I can't agree with functional programming (for some things).
tl;dr does passing in a pointer p, and modifying *q (where q is the stack copy of p within the method), and returning q, count as functional programming?

Be nice to OP.

Who are the humans currently working in the intersection of logic, math, that awesome category theory thing user said, systems theory AND political philosophy? I read a few cybernetics and ecology books years ago and I thought that's how we are being ruled right now. The math seemed impossible to me at the time and no one could answer my questions.

Do not kill this thread!

That's an implementation detail. If you just want to avoid a copy, every functional language has done that since the start. You don't need to worry about passing a pointer and safely mutating it. Just don't leave any other reference around and the compiler knows it can use the same memory. If you want to do unsafe mutation, then no you can not. That's very much part of the point, it works like math so you can reason about it just like math. If you say x = 5 you can't change your mind and decide x is really 7 later. That's like trying to say 5 = 7.

My understanding (limited tinkering with Haskell) is that there is no mutable state in FP: everything is passed and returned by value, and some clever compiler tricks (e.g. lazy evaluation) are implemented to prevent this from being slow.
No. Passing a pointer to non-const data permits side-effects (modification of program state external to the function from within the function). This violates the FP idiom. The analogue of FP in C++ is to pass your data in by value, modify it locally, and return it by value (and pray your compiler is smart enough to elide the copy, else your performance will be dreadful).

Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, 1968

W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956

Political and economic theory do have some things in common with software development, especially when you get into resource management. What is "private property" other than a mutex? I'd sooner trust programmers to engineer a coherent government than some idiots who won a beauty contest.

Since I'm not completely clear what you mean (I think I do), are you stating it does what I think R (supposedly does)? R has no pointers, so you can't pass by reference. However, this results in massive copies of data when a function is called on a dataframe. But, supposedly, in R this isn't an issue because the interpreter will handle knowing when to pass a reference for saving memory/time.
tl;dr so, if I'm correct, just pass by value. Hopefully the compiler properly deals with it when necessary.
However, wouldn't this "compiler"-based trick then be dependent on the language itself being a functional programming language? I.e., functional programming can't be viewed as a paradigm e.g. what

seems to do. Because, if the compiler doesn't support it, and passing the reference yourself breaks the FP idiom, it follows that functional programming becomes dependent on the compiler.

Yes, you have to have a functional programming language. You can try to program in a functional style in something primitive like C where it doesn't force anything much on you, but you gain little benefit since a huge part of the benefit of functional programming is the guarantees the compiler can make, which is why programs written in haskell or better languages have so few bugs. You can't do anything like functional programming in a mess like java, it is totally hopeless.

By everyone you mean all humans right? We can discount most hominids today as non human.

I think this is the best way to approach this. Use the tool for the job.

Can a programmer explain this to a layman? Genuinely interested.

t. physiologist

You fucking pleb, how do you think that the top politicians are operating right now? Do you really think that they abide by the spectrums lol? Well at least the better ones. Look man, its fairly easy, we have a goal, which is of jew extermination and 1488. Now around the world there are various variables scattered. They can be economic, ethnic, religious…IQ points may be tied to them, histories may be tied to them, current trends and desires may be tied to them.

And then you have your own variables. The trick is to use your variables in such a way that they will affect a great deal of many other numbers out there, that through a chain of events will most likely yield positive outcome to yours. But this also means that all options are on the table. Which means that besides the kikes, the lefties and the nogs. I at least dont consider many other groups to be purely hostile. But rather practical. In a similar way that the jewUSA has funded foreign groups, which may be ideologically very against their own…but through the effects that they have with added weaponry, yield very beneficial effects for your own.

And we have been doing something similar here. Though to a lesser and purer scale. But we have gotten so much used to the jew, and his way of scheming, that he is like a teacher to us in some way. There are many anons who go on twitter and do these crazy, weird agitations of feminists, pretending to be one of them, just to drive them into a logical trap in which they cannot escape from, by their own design. So I wouldnt even see it as an object. But rather just a giant mathematical puzzle. The few mentioned variables being subterfuge of the enemy, volkishness, information warfare, resource allocation, OP/IP sec, short term goals, long term goals etc.

mash them all together for 1488, and the removal of the ones hindering the 88, and what we have today, with our information warfare strength is exactly what we are doing already to our maximum potential most likely.

and to compare, how vastly different the liberals are. Their main goal most likely is "raise the GDP", hence why they are so morally corrupt and so easily walk over the white folks.

All I seek to do with this is break the left-right dichotomy that has controlled and severely limited political thought and discussion for so long. OOP is a vehicle I chose because I have some understanding of it, and felt others might grasp it as well. Other anons have pointed out some other systems that can be applied that would also serve this purpose well (and other anons have been schooling me on programming - I admit I'm not much of a programmer). If we want to change how people see politics, I think we need to start at the root of it and have a foundation, then a framework in place to build on. We need to move from the bottom up.

This is the long game we need to play.

To make it simple, lets say that you are outside, and there is a rock on your path. Now the rock just lies there, it wont move unless compelled by outside force.

Then there is you, someone whois hobby is geology. You may find this rock interesting and wish to look at it because it looks funny, maybe pick it up and then you may choose what to do with it.

Now there is Timmy, your neighbor, he kinda is a dick to you and he sees you eyeing that rock from a distance while he enjoys the meadow nearby while playing with his dog. "That fucking nerd is looking at rocks again" he thinks. And he wants to take the rock and throw it into the nearby pond.

But then from a different path there is mohomo'd the pedo goatfucker, he also is walking towards this path and he is mad at things, so while he is walking around he is kicking plants, rocks, stumps and trees around him, surely when he encounters the rock he will kick it too.

What happens to the rock is up to question right now of who arrives there firsts, who interacts with whom, what natural events may change the course. Which additional actors may or may not arrive at the scene. The pace at which they are walking. Maybe their hunger changing and acting up, maybe a breeze will make them sneeze of hay fever and then they think different thoughts. Now if you are a 4th actor and you like the person whois hobby is geology. You could handle it in different ways. You could slow down the guy who is into geology, and speed up mohomo'd the pedo goatfucker and Timmy so that they have to encounter one another, and potentially get into a fight. You may choose to throw a stick for Timmy's dog really far away so he misses the opportunity, and then when mohomo'd the pedo goatfucker kicks the rock, you just bring it back after he left.


This is impossible for the lower and middle classes. They cannot comprehend additional variables, their IQ is simply out of range for the crap I typed out in this post.

oh and to add to my post: I think that there are additional problems that do not quite neatly fit into programming language types of events: Variables that lurk beneath cognition and only pop up when they become significant enough of value. Those are extremely hard to deal with, the black swan events. These black swan events are the reason why we are even having a shot at winning. The internet was a black swan event for the kikes. But reality is so complex, so huge and different that its nearly impossible to really map most of it out. This fight is at the edge of our cognition. And we used simple things like the left/right dichotomies to give it some semblance of sense of what the fuck is going on.

The left right dichotomy did not always exist user. It was invented, it can be broken.

Op literally said how communism works
HahahahahHa

That doesn’t compute.

the left right dichotomy works so well because its so simple: It has a reach that can get to nearly 100% of the people. You being on this board, you vastly overestimate the intellectual capacities of like 60% of the people. So hugely vast that you dont take into account that they are near mongoloids, completely brain dead retards as pic related explains it very well. You cannot replace something with something that is so much more complex that only the brainlets will get you fool. It has to be something simple like second pic related. You have to make people believe that they are those evil doggo's for example, in some sort of super simple concept. A thing like "evil doggo spectrum"

Hahahah, this pajeet code is great. I'm actually pretty good at java, so I'll try to explain.

So in Java you have "Classes" which are like custom data types (instead of a primitive, like a double for a decimal number). Java also has built in with it its own classes, one of which is called "Object" which is a very abstract high level class that other classes are children classes of.

When you have a method that does things to an object, you require that object as a parameter in the method description. When you have a method that does things to a collection of objects, you pass in an Array which stores the objects instead of just the objects, this requiring only 1 parameter for any number of items of that object type.

So sometimes, when you design a method, you design it with an array of an object as a parameter because you plan on modified any number of things of that object. However, sometimes, you only have 1 object you want to run that method on, instead of an array, So before you pass that object into the method, you must pack it into an array.

What you are seeing here is a guy who was too lazy to always pack his objects in arrays to pass into methods beforehand, so he wrote a fuck ton of methods that automatically pack them into arrays for him.

The problem is that his solution is pathetically written. Waaayy more work than is necessary.

First of all - the way he wrote these methods would always return an array of Objects instead of the actual object of the items he passes into it (any child class can take on the form of a parent class to it, however, a parent needs to be casted in order to be treated as a child, which can introduce all sorts of problems). He could have easily gotten around that by using a Generic ().

Another thing is that he wrote a different method each for any number of objects he wanted to pack into an array, when this could have been all solved with a single method using whats known as "varargs" (stackoverflow.com/questions/2330942/java-variable-number-or-arguments-for-a-method)

He could have made a really really simple, elegant method using Generics and varargs, but instead he wrote so much fucking pajeet code to solve a simple problem. On top of that, I'm pretty sure there are many already built in ways of solving this problem which he could have used.

This user is correct.
If you had studied
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
you would know this.
Systems Engineering.

Go away evil dogger.

If you look at the source code, there is a comment justifying it as follows:
A lot of these "daily wtf" code examples are either for an optimization, like this one, or to allow compatibility with old software and old language standards, or for something like a hardware consideration. A lot of them aren't though lel

It has worked once already. Its basically just morality for the retards with force of violence and "Nasty" things compelling them to be less shit and to do less bad things. In the age of the internet we would need something like the evil doggo, maybe make them believe that the evil doggo will get them or something. You would be surprised to how many you could reach that way. People out there ARE retarded like that.

hmm, I guess reducing bytecode instructions could make sense, but something still seems missing here (I haven't messed with Groovy)..

Why would these methods exist at all in the first place?

does

Object[] myObjects = Object[]{null, null, null, null}

actually require more instructions than
ArrayUtils.createArray(null, null,null,null);
when that createArray method would essentially be running the same line of code?

It seems like not using varargs or generics might lessen the instruction count, but I don't see how passing it through that method could.

oop is just a governance heavy nightmare when you want to do something simple, repetitive and well defined.
In many cases i found it easier to re-write fast, condensed C programs to adapt to changing needs than to write a single C+ behemoth, and the memory footprint was orders of magnitude smaller.
not every tool is good for every job, and i was processing gigantic amounts of data.

I always felt like writing anything in Java was way faster than C++. Although yeah when you go to run it, it will often be slower because of the JVM, but also this comes with many benefits like compatibility.

You also don't have any of the headache with makefiles.

A lot of times though, its really the IDEs that give java an edge, Netbeans, for small simple programs, is like programming heaven.

That's nice OP, like all the other dozen superior political theories, but quite worthless as long as kikes and other non-whites roam our lands, it hardly matters which political theory you conduct while your people are dying. To be honest the more you learn about politics the more you realize that the question of left and right is not about politics at all. Politics are a smokescreen for the actual left vs right. Peel off the layers and it all trickles down to Team Kike(left) vs Team "Your Race"(right), and as long as this battle continues, politics will always be just a tool to wage this battle and right now the main purpose of it is exposing and removing enemy entities from power while strengthening, recruiting, informing and elevating your own people to power. Welcome to the right.

This is the truth.
To further elaborate on your post, Unix way is best way.
If you create a small program that does a small amount of things very fast, you can link it together with other programs using a higher level interpreted language to guide the workflow.
Once you have the small programs built, they're always there for you to use as lego pieces in other projects.
This strategy has allowed me to hammer out tools for the various leaks that have happened within 15 minutes of looking at the data to be processed.
Ashley Madison was very fun.

But if you are smart about the way you design your systems, this is essentially the same thing as writing small functions in your code and making function libraries which you can just copy and paste into other code. Or you could just package it up as a "library" and "include" it from then on in whichever future projects you are using. It doesnt matter too much which language you use here as long as you know the way that language could be optimized for that problem.

I have experienced the least hassle with programming for RHEL, so I can agree with you on the Unix thing.

governance overheads. to define objects requires vast overheads

We can make a simple overview/tldr of nationalism for the simple folk. Simple hwhite folk are great people.

I know a simple tl;dr for them: ITS THE KIKES MAN, THEY LIE ALL THE TIME. DONT TRUST THEM.

but then you would have to teach them how to spot a jew, thats middle to upper class skills. Then you have to teach them about the industries and areas of life that the jew has infiltrated. Those are books worth of data. So…I dont know if its that easy to teach something to them that could be of value. A majority of them just want to fuck and to drink. If they get depressed because of "economy or whatever"…they dont have the mental fortitude to make the connections to the jews. They just wither slowly and die.

Good find user, thanks for sharing. Systems theory seems a good fit for thinking about, well, systems.

I can't tell if this is the work of shills or easily triggered 'tism. You tried OP, here's your (You). Next time mention the idea without the source of inspiration, maybe then you can keep anons on track

...

Objects are memes though user. Meme-oriented politics. Which this board already is.

This is almost completely wrong.


This is more correct but still only looks at one axis

OP, you might be interested in operations research. It does not exactly look at politics but the point is that plenty of people have applied programming concepts to human organization. In fact it predates modern programming theory by more than 150 years (I don't have an exact timeline on hand)

The point of OO is to bundle the concepts of "data" and "function" and expose the bundle as a single interface, so arguably it is the most natural way to look at certain institutions. E.g. the USPS consists of workers (data) that deliver mail (function) and both are presented to customers (users) and a single bundle (interface). You cannot unilaterally take away the function "deliver mail" and apply it to another interface, e.g. police services.

Most of your post is incoherent, by the way. Sorry.

CT would be a good framework for comparing different institutions but it's hard to see why the formality would help


t. PL researcher

kek


This is interesting. Thank you.

OOP is the communism of computer science. Sounds great in theory (at least to some people), but in practice putting everything in to boxes called objects often doesn't work. The relationships between the objects becomes a massive spaghetti code in practice, and the much touted re-usability and scalability or whatever is often more trouble than its worth. Some code you might need in a program consists of abstract, complex, subtle, and indirectly related concepts which are in no way 'objects' like in the real world, and cannot be modeled as such. Inheritance is also retarded and makes most things worse, except for the cherry picked examples in the textbooks.

Attached video is a pretty decent overview of what's bad with OOP:

The response to this criticism mirrors the response to this same argument against communism. That is, something like “the theory is perfect, there is no problem with OOP, SOLID, polymorphism/inheritance, central planning, the party, Marxism, etc…the problem is with the imperfect humans who implement it. If I were in charge and my special snowflake version of a planned economy/software architecture were put into place, then you would see the true utopia,” and so on like that.

Now, with computer programs, OOP sometimes works, unlike communism in economics, because the sphere within which software operates is far and away more limited than the whole economy, and is totally artificially created by humans in the first place, so it is actually plausible to centrally plan and control for all variables in a computer program (sometimes). Lots of academic/intellectual retards have tried to impose abstract theories of control that work in limited artificial environments on the uncontrolled, unlimited natural and organic environment and always fail, typically killing a lot of resistant normalfags in the process

As far as games go, OOP is more useful for the most superficial, scripting layer of game objects, typically in a pre-existing engine's editor like Unity or Unreal, because that is a 3D simulation with actual objects, unlike almost all other programming. Not so much with even the underlying source code of game engines though. Sticking to strict OOP there, or OOP at all, is often, but not always, pretty retarded.

i'm a filthy oop .net developer making shitty web apps with no experience in glorious functional master race programming. Will I be cool if I learn F#?

I'm not sure why you even replied to my post to state the obvious. Never trust kikes.

You're missing the point user. Don't get too hung up on the details. OOP is the vehicle I'm using to explain my idea, but it can be explained using other means pointed out by anons ITT.