61–70 of 97 posts
There is a transcript: click Casey's links more click Show transcript
I think you mean the machine-generated one on Youtube? It took me a few minutes of searching from your slightly scant description. Is there any way to extract just that text into a document I can read?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RAD was what, 15, 20 years ago? What has he released, in terms of proprietary or open source products, since then? Not just games, I mean ANYTHING. Refterm, and... what else? It's not like he was busy with his MSFT or RAD dayjob during this period.
He created Meow Hash somewhat recently and open sourced that. It's not a huge project but it's very useful. A lot of his time goes toward education, his personal projects and contract programming. Not every programmer is dedicated to releasing their own open source or commercial software. I'd bet most programmers don't. Using this as a metric to claim that he has a bad coding approach is ridiculous and laughable. Esp…
I'm not the one telling everyone they're doing everything wrong, and did it not occur to you that my perception of what his output ought to have been over that timeframe (especially for someone who rates his own abilities as highly as he does) is informed by my own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not moving the goal posts. Different people making the same claim may use different phrasing, and Google very much has recency bias. By searching for something slightly different we deprioritize the video we’ve already seen.
It's not the same claim. Muratori's statement (that he debunks in his talk): OO was created for teams. Graham's statement: OO is useful for teams. Those are distinct concepts, there's lots of evidence of statements like Graham's out there, and you've helpfully provided one. What igouy is asking for is evidence of the former claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the same claim. Muratori's statement (that he debunks in his talk): OO was created for teams. Graham's statement: OO is useful for teams. Those are distinct concepts, there's lots of evidence of statements like Graham's out there, and you've helpfully provided one. What igouy is asking for is evidence of the former claim.
A primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
> So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small.
Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link really just an interesting but irrelevant non sequitur?
EDIT: For those coming in later who don't feel like clicking random Youtube links, parent post is referencing Steele's talk "Growing a Language".
This video contains many serious misrepresentations. For example, it makes a claim that Alan Kay only started talking about message-passing only in 2003 and that it was a kind of backpedaling due the failures of the inheritance-based OOP model. That is a laughable claim. Kay had given detailed talks discussing issues of OOP, dynamic composition and message-passing in mid-80s. Some of those talks are on YouTube: https…
The dates are the dates of the sources, he says in the talk he wasn't going to try to infer the dates these ideas were invented. Also he barely talked about Alan Kay.
https://youtu.be/wo84LFzx5nI?t=823
He mentions Alan Kay about dozen times and uses quotes and dates to create a specific narrative about Smalltalk. That narrative is demonstrably false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
The only place "team" shows up in the transcript is here: > So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small. Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link rea…
In particular, note how he talks about growing the language by adding new things to it which are like the existing parts of the language. Contrast that with APL, where the existing parts of the language all had funny symbols, but new things added by the user needed alphanumeric names. In Java the language gives you a bunch of classes and interfaces and whatnot, and you extend the language by defining your own classes and interfaces. You don’t have to do this yourself, of course, since you can include libraries alongside your code. Those libraries can extend the language by defining new classes and interfaces.
As he says:
43:54 Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then
build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small
and because what you
44:02 would then do with it was small. Now programs are big messes
with many needs.
44:07 A small language won’t do the job. If you design a big language
all at once and then try to build it all at once, it will
44:15 fail. You will end up late and some other small language will
take your place.Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only place "team" shows up in the transcript is here: > So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small. Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link rea…
You know that thing people do where they say the same thing using different words? You’ll have to comprehend the words rather than merely pattern matching on a specific phrase. In particular, note how he talks about growing the language by adding new things to it which are like the existing parts of the language. Contrast that with APL, where the existing parts of the language all had funny symbols, but new things ad…
EDIT: You seem to be conflating the two ideas still. OO being created for teams is a different claim than it being good for teams. At most, you could stretch Steele's talk to the second, but not to the first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whether it was made for that is immaterial This is in the talk, he explicitly says that its often brought up that "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" etc etc. The first 30 minutes is his reaction to that, disproving it. Whether thats true or interesting is a different question, but its explicitly stated in the video, at the start, before he g…
> "OOP is made for large teams" "you're not using it as intended" "its not made to model your domain hierarchy" Are there actual references for those quotes? Were they said by some kind-of expert or by a sales person or by cousin John? Are they strawmen set-up to knock-down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know that thing people do where they say the same thing using different words? You’ll have to comprehend the words rather than merely pattern matching on a specific phrase. In particular, note how he talks about growing the language by adding new things to it which are like the existing parts of the language. Contrast that with APL, where the existing parts of the language all had funny symbols, but new things ad…
It's a remarkable stretch to go from those words to "OO was created for working with teams." It is neither implicit nor explicit in the talk and I don't know why anyone would make the claim you are making. EDIT: You seem to be conflating the two ideas still. OO being created for teams is a different claim than it being good for teams. At most, you could stretch Steele's talk to the second, but not to the first.
This talk tells us why he and the others at Sun made that choice. He says right there that he wants Java to enable people to write large programs. He specifically contrasts it with the small languages and small programs of the past, the kind that were invariably written by individuals or small teams.
This is what he believes OOP is good for, and why researchers have been studying it for so long. He is reinforcing the belief of the attendees that OOP in general, and languages like Java specifically, are a panacea created for the explicit purpose of letting engineers work more efficiently together on large, complex systems.
We know from the historical record that early researchers did not have this belief. We know that many practitioners of the 90s and 2000s did. This talk may not be the genesis of that belief, but it is proximate to it.
Thought he was just producing filler content on youtube but this really shows how magical it can be to put real effort into something.