81–90 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's all about ad-revenue.
I agree. And that for me makes me not want to watch. If someone has a message they want to communicate, then it's worth writing down. If they don't, and primarily just want the views, then it's not worth my time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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.
Oh if only you watched the presentation, where he quotes Bjarne Stroustrup and Alan Kay xD
"Unfortunately, inheritance — though an incredibly powerful technique — has turned out to be very difficult for novices (and even professionals) to deal with." Alan Kay, The Early History of Smalltalk, page 82
That's taken from a section which reflects on introducing programming to children in the summer of '73 —
In part, what we were seeing was the "hacker phenomenon", that for any given pursuit, a particular 5% of the population will jump into it naturally, while the 80% or so who can learn it in time do not find it natural.
… it is likely that this area is more like writing than we wanted it to be. Namely, for the "80%", it really has to be learned gradually over a period of years in order to build up the structures that need to be there for design and solution look-ahead.
-
13:47 -- It's because 10 years earlier, he was already saying he kind of soured on it. He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird.
-
There were a variety of strong desires for a real inheritance mechanism from Adele and me, from Larry Tesler, who was working on desktop publishing, and from the grad students. page 83
-
A word about inheritance. … By the time Smalltalk-76 came along, Dan Ingalls had come up with a scheme that was Simula-like in it's semantics but could be incrementally changed on the fly to be in accord with our goals of close interaction. I was not completely thrilled with it because it seemed that we needed a better theory about inheritance entirely (and still do). … But no comprehensive and clean multiple inheritance scheme appeared that was compelling enough to surmount Dan's original Simula-like design. page 84
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. And that for me makes me not want to watch. If someone has a message they want to communicate, then it's worth writing down. If they don't, and primarily just want the views, then it's not worth my time.
If I was the presenter and reading those comments I would just not make any text post available just out of spite. Jesus people are entitled.
I am a writer, and I write words. I do this by reading lots and lots of words. Some of my articles have required me to read 20,000 to 30,000 words or more in a few hours to gather the info in order to tell people what happened or what it meant.
I can read at a few thousand words a minute if I must. It is apparently, I learned in recent years, on the order of 10x as fast as the average reading speed.
(As an aside, a blind friend of mine has his computer set to talk at 600wpm but he could handle faster before his hearing started to fail. This is not some superpower; this speed of comprehension is just a learned skill.)
I can't waste two or three hours watching videos from someone who is, to me, some internet rando just to find out if there is a story here. I'd lose my job.
I need text, plain text that I can zoom and search and stick through Readability or something. Some gen-alpha types litter their text posts with little furry characters who -- I don't know, relay some of the author's inner monologue or something? I don't really understand. It destroys my ability to read it, and I've reached a point of intolerance. There are a million blog posts and comments a day, and if someone deliberately fscks up theirs because of mental health problems, fine, their problem, I'm not wasting my time fighting through it.
If it's worth saying, if it's worth sharing, it's worth writing down.
If it's not worth writing down, it's not worth my time.
To quote Bill Hicks, “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I was the presenter and reading those comments I would just not make any text post available just out of spite. Jesus people are entitled.
That's fine. You do you. I am a writer, and I write words. I do this by reading lots and lots of words. Some of my articles have required me to read 20,000 to 30,000 words or more in a few hours to gather the info in order to tell people what happened or what it meant. I can read at a few thousand words a minute if I must. It is apparently, I learned in recent years, on the order of 10x as fast as the average reading…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amusingly, an hour into the video he complains about information being hidden behind hours of video. It would be a better paper, but apparently he hasn't written or put one out there. Probably a 20-30 minute read instead of 2.5 hours (or 1.25 since I'm running it at double speed).
To be fair, though, the video has an uncommonly high (by modern standards!) information density/signal-to-noise ratio—there's minimal filler, and it's very straightforward and to-the-point with regards to its subject matter!
13:45 -- "He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's hard to argue that there exists a vast space of untapped design potential for games that can't be realized only because of the limitations of off the shelf game engines. Most people who use custom engines use them for mainstream common game concepts, because they disagree with architectural decisions about the engine itself (most likely the language being used) and they would rather start from scratch th…
A custom engine is never _needed_ technically speaking since COTS engines are often customizable to the point where you can do anything you want with them. That doesn't mean that they don't influence the design of games, though. There's a talk that Casey gives where he explains how he implemented the movement system for The Witness, in which he shows examples of Unity-based "walking simulator"-type games dealing with…
Yeah, no. You can make a lot of things with an engine, and if you don't already have the necessary talent to make a custom engine you probably should just not.
But there are certainly games which would not exist as "Just use COTS" games. The first which comes to mind is Outer Wilds.
Outer Wilds is running a tiny solar system model. Such a model isn't stable for very long even if you had a lot of compute power which a video game console does not, but in Outer Wilds there's an excuse for that [spoiler] the sun is about to explode, it's a time loop game. Still, this is a heavily specialised engine because normal games centre on the camera or player, Outer Wilds can't do that, the model would explode almost immediately if you do that, so the centre is the sun at all times.
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.
I think it's important to note a couple of things about this. First, Casey offers refunds on the handmade website for anyone who purchased the pre-order. Second, the pre-orders were primarily purchased by people who wanted to get the in-progress source code of the project, not people who just wanted to get the finished game. I'm not aware of anyone who purchased the pre-order solely to get the finished game itself. (…
Look, for whatever reason, he's not good at finishing what he starts: https://www.destructoid.com/he-worked-on-it-for-three-years-... How much of that is due to the programming practices he espouses, I'm not sure. Ironically, if he went all-in on OOP with Smalltalk, I could see the super productivity that environment provides actually making it harder for him to finish anything, given how much it facilitates prototyp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the video: "It's like, yeah, he said that in 2003, right? He said that after a very long time. So why did he say it? It's because 10 years earlier, he was already saying he kind of soured on it." 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.
Casey says he “didn’t really cover Alan Kay” https://youtu.be/wo84LFzx5nI?t=8651 To me that says that Kay wasn’t a major focus of his research. That seems to be reflected in the talk itself: I counted 6 Bjorne sources, 4 Alan Kay sources, 2 more related to Smalltalk, and about 10 focused on Sketchpad, Douglas Ross, and others. By source count, the talk is roughly 18% about Alan Kay and 27% about Smalltalk overall - n…
Honestly would love to see a Kay and Casey discussion about this very thing.
I find the discussions about real domain vs OOP objects to be a bit tangential, though still worth having. When constructing a program from objects, there’s a ton of objects that you create that have no real-world or domain analogs. After all, you’re writing a program by building little machines that do things. Your domain model likely doesn’t contain an EventBus or JsonDeserializer; that purely exists in the abstract ‘world’ of your software.
Here’s a thought: Conceptually, what would stop me from writing an ECS in Smalltalk? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head (whether I’d want to or not is a different question). Casey even hints at this.
This is probably the best Casey talk I’ve ever seen and one of the clearest definitions of ‘here is my problem with OOP’. I don’t agree with everything necessarily, but it’s the first time I’ve watched one of these and thought “yep they actually said the concrete thing that they disagree with”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
True, he doesn't come right out and say the words. But don’t lose sight of the context. This is the big Keynote speech at a conference called OOPSLA, or “Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages & Applications”, in 1998. It is safe to say that the audience has heard of Java by now. They already know that the core language design choice made during the creation of Java was to make it object—oriented. Objets are…