Is there a script or transcript anywhere, for those of us who can read 10x faster than it is possible to understand speech?
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
11–20 of 193 posts
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#12Is there a script or transcript anywhere, for those of us who can read 10x faster than it is possible to understand speech?
I had whisper make a transcript and skimmed some but I ended up watching the talk at ~1.5x speed in the end anyway. https://pastebin.com/EngTq9ZA If you want the timestamps kept in I can paste that too.
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#13Is there a script or transcript anywhere, for those of us who can read 10x faster than it is possible to understand speech?
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
No help. It's video speed.
I can read at several thousand words a minute. So I need the whole transcript in one shot.
Then I can read it in 10 or 15 minutes or so, and decide if it's worth watching a 2 hour plus video. The answer is almost always "no".
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
No help. It's video speed. I can read at several thousand words a minute. So I need the whole transcript in one shot. Then I can read it in 10 or 15 minutes or so, and decide if it's worth watching a 2 hour plus video. The answer is almost always "no".
Use yt-dlp to download the transcript.
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
No help. It's video speed. I can read at several thousand words a minute. So I need the whole transcript in one shot. Then I can read it in 10 or 15 minutes or so, and decide if it's worth watching a 2 hour plus video. The answer is almost always "no".
A few lines of Javascript in the console can copy that to the clipboard for you. Maybe someone's packaged that up already. (It's on my todo list to look around...)
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#16[flagged]
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
No help. It's video speed. I can read at several thousand words a minute. So I need the whole transcript in one shot. Then I can read it in 10 or 15 minutes or so, and decide if it's worth watching a 2 hour plus video. The answer is almost always "no".
Not the closed caption button. In the bottom of the description there is "show transcript" which gives a scrollable transcript.
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#18I enjoyed listening to this talk. In many ways I was aware of the history of OOP but its great to see it in more detail with quotes from known names, etc.
I also appreciate the shoutout to Looking Glass Studios and their Thief: the dark project game. I LOVED this game when it came out. Obviously the programmer inside appreciates Thief for its overall design as well.
Around 2005 I had to make a graphical shop floor on the web and all product on shelves, etc. Trying to do this in HTML4 with different browsers was a pain, and mostly written in Javascript. During my later time in the project I started to get a feel for AJAX and I wanted to move all my javascript into a library (backend) so I could do more than just an HTML interface. I was thinking OpenGL and other methods or even networking where multiple people could do things together. I started re-writing a VB.NET version of this javascript library and I could not get past the initial design.
Remember i'm technically still a junior developer. I was designing the project "the right way" with OOP - inheritence, overrides, etc. It "looked nice" when you view my OOP as a diagram. It starts off well but when you go down the rabbit hole as well as new features it starts to get bloated and messy.
In the end I thought about games I was writing in C and viewed what I was doing in a game-like way. I ended up creating each "item" with a unique Id (index) and a bunch of "features" that link to the "item" Id.
This way, when rendering, I just look each "feature" update and re-render. It was working suprisingly well. I could then, for each customer using this product, could have their own XML file to store each "object" which was simply an "item" with "features"
Obviously, this is all before I had heard of Entity Component Systems (ECS) or Data-oriented Design, and other names.
I still treasure that project to this very day as a pure success story. I was porting it over to C# before I decided to leave around 2009. If the pay was better, I could still be working for them today (assuming I get more pay increase as the years passed)
It is a reminder that OOP is not be-all-end-all solution.
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#19Entertaining. The presenter obviously doesn't like the class hierarchy to correspond to the domain model. He seems to think that this was an essential feature of OOP, supported by some quotations by Smalltalk exponents. But not even the Smalltalk world could agree on what OOP actually is (just compare the statements by Kay with the actual architecture of Smalltalk-76ff) and as quickly as Smalltalk lost its significan…
He literally gives extensive primary source citations to show that the originators of OOP presented this class-domain correspondence as the correct way to think about and do OOP. Bjarne Stroustrup is not just some random guy.
Re: The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-Five Year Mistake
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
OOPs = "object-oriented programming", BUT it's a more restrained and thoughtful complaint than just "objects suck" or "inheritance sucks". He cabins it pretty clearly at 11:00 minutes in: "compile-time hierarchy of encapsulation that matches the domain model was a mistake"
To unpack that a little, he looks to the writings of the early developers of object oriented programming and identifies the ways this assumption became established. People like Bjarne Stroustrup (developer of C++) took on and promulgated the view that the inheritance hierarchy of classes in an object oriented system can be or should be a literal instantiation of the types of objects from the domain model (e.g. differ…
Is Objective-C discussed at all?