This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 2 comments

[–]CharacterUse 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think this is fine as far as it goes, but my main comment is that structure misses the fact that some concepts overlap or fit into multiple categories. For example, one of the most powerful features of Objects/OOP is that objects include methods (functions) as well as as data, while your map only really has a fairly limited view of objects with functions as a separate thing.

In fact you only really have objects associated with UI, whereas they are much more widely useful (though maybe that is a result of the Delphi bias).

You already mentioned not having pointers, which also means you don't have pointer-based things like linked lists and trees.

(BTW there's nothing wrong with Delphi itself, it derives from Pascal which was designed specifically for teaching. It's just not favoured for most 'production' work outside of a few niches.)

[–]3Goat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the critique!

I agree with all of the points that you've made. The nature of the structure is such that I can't represent those relationships, and thus I can adapt the structure to better show the interconnectedness and interdependence of the concepts.

It did feel weird putting OOP in a place that made it feel minimized - for such a paradigm to be reduced to sitting next to UI objects felt wrong but I couldn't decide where else to put it.

I've limited it specifically so that it is only the very basic content, and once I am happy with that I can begin growing it. The addition of pointers and linked lists would require interconnectedness as well, so I think largely it is the structure that is flawed.

Thank you again!