|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2016-7-19. : 12:53 am]  jjf28 -- what we really need is some studies comparing programs done in OOP and procedural manners[2016-7-19. : 12:53 am] CecilSunkure -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: What is a good practice anyway Specific problem, specific solution[2016-7-19. : 12:52 am] CecilSunkure -- Yeah it is. You're priority is what you call clear. My priority is also what I call clear. We have different priorities[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am]  Moose -- ITT: People arguing over things that fit different requirements better LMAO[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: I can do in one line of python that which will take you 20 in C++. That one line doesn't have to be OOP. Not the 20[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am] * Generalpie yawns and flops over*[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am] Sacrieur -- I can do in one line of python that which will take you 20 in C++.[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am] Moose -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Mini Moose 2707 Typical OOP thoughtspeak Except the entire book is about LISP[2016-7-19. : 12:50 am] CecilSunkure -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: "programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, IMO Typical OOP thoughtspeak[2016-7-19. : 12:49 am] Moose -- "programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, IMO[2016-7-19. : 12:48 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: If we didn't give a shit about that then we'd all be writing machine code. I just don't think this is true.[2016-7-19. : 12:48 am] Sand Wraith -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: SMH these kids don't know functional or procedural programming I mean, I know of them, I don't think I've worked with either[2016-7-19. : 12:47 am] Sacrieur -- If we didn't give a shit about that then we'd all be writing machine code.[2016-7-19. : 12:47 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: Look man, software was meant to be read by people. And to run on hardware![2016-7-19. : 12:47 am] Moose -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Sand Wraith Lol of course not. Just have an idea of what your code does when it's run, and how it solves your problem So why are you using C++ LMAO[2016-7-19. : 12:47 am] jjf28 -- hardware runs a class specifically designed for that hardware just fine[2016-7-19. : 12:47 am] CecilSunkure -- Sand WraithSand Wraith shouted: like are you seriously suggesting everyone write in assembly? Lol of course not. Just have an idea of what your code does when it's run, and how it solves your problem[2016-7-19. : 12:46 am] CecilSunkure -- Okay it can be OOP if by "understandable" you mean "reads more like English". Problem is hardware doesn't read English[2016-7-19. : 12:46 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: If it's written using good coding practices, it's clear and understandable. And not OOP[2016-7-19. : 12:45 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: You strike me as someone who's never had to read anyone else's code before. Ok. That's pretty much my job, and they do pay me.[2016-7-19. : 12:45 am] Sacrieur -- If it's written using good coding practices, it's clear and understandable.[2016-7-19. : 12:45 am] Sacrieur -- You strike me as someone who's never had to read anyone else's code before.[2016-7-19. : 12:45 am] Moose -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Sacrieur OOP is spaghetti King More like C++ is spaghetti king, IMO.[2016-7-19. : 12:45 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: The only thing worse than refactoring spaghetti code is having to read it. OOP is spaghetti King[2016-7-19. : 12:44 am] Sacrieur -- The only thing worse than refactoring spaghetti code is having to read it.[2016-7-19. : 12:43 am] CecilSunkure -- You can choose to ignore these differences, but will pay for that one way another[2016-7-19. : 12:43 am] CecilSunkure -- SacrieurSacrieur shouted: Yeah okay, you go design your hardware specific software that's going to run on billions of different hardware configurations. Different hardware, different problem, different solution.[2016-7-19. : 12:42 am] Sand Wraith -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Sand Wraith Exactly. And this is why MS word takes 30s to load. well I don't even have it on this PC apparently but our tablet loads the mobile version in a second or two[2016-7-19. : 12:42 am] Sacrieur -- Yeah okay, you go design your hardware specific software that's going to run on billions of different hardware configurations.[2016-7-19. : 12:41 am] jjf28 -- I am listening to Bjorney atm, but I'm missing the connection to real problems[2016-7-19. : 12:41 am] CecilSunkure -- Sand WraithSand Wraith shouted: Isn't part of the whole OOP thing to remove the specifics of thinking? OOP-land problems are more intuitive for most people to deal with instead of writing optimized x86. Exactly. And this is why MS word takes 30s to load.[2016-7-19. : 12:41 am] Moose -- So why listen to old Bjorney when his language doesn't even have good OOP LMAO[2016-7-19. : 12:40 am] CecilSunkure -- Also, I don't really care what other people define OOP as. So for you, you'll have to decide who to listen to, like I already have[2016-7-19. : 12:39 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: I watched and read around 2m several times, but am still really confused how you got from CecilSunkure to "follow these steps, guidelines, or whatever, and you get good code"... I'm clear on your conclusion but mostly just disagreeing with how you describe OOP, and don't really see anyone else describing it the same way From his video and PDF.[2016-7-19. : 12:37 am] jjf28 -- I watched and read around 2m several times, but am still really confused how you got from CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Watch specifically around 2 minutes when he describes Scala, objects and abstraction. to "follow these steps, guidelines, or whatever, and you get good code"... I'm clear on your conclusion but mostly just disagreeing with how you describe OOP, and don't really see anyone else describing it the same way[2016-7-19. : 12:37 am] Moose -- He's managed to write a program where the majority of his execution time is in getters six layers deep or something.[2016-7-19. : 12:37 am] Sand Wraith -- You don't like it that people are lazy, or that there's a performance hit for having all these objects and shit flying around?[2016-7-19. : 12:37 am] lil-Inferno -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: jjf28 le sigh. The mindless part was my own addition, however! Let me get another quote. CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Bjorne Video -- He's describing OOP as a methodology to apply abstraction for describing and organizing code in relation to real-life hierarchies and real-life organization CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: The underlying problem with this is that the hardware OOP-code works on doesn't give a fuck about real-life meaning, relations, or hierarchies CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: In practice we get people thinking about problems that aren't "real", which results in code that doesn't solve real problems, and instead address organizational and artificial problems CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Watch specifically around 2 minutes when he describes Scala, objects and abstraction. CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: He's straight up saying "Here's a paradigm to write good code". This means: follow these steps, guidelines, or whatever, and you get good code CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: My case is that by forgetting OOP and focusing on solving problems in terms of what the hardware does, without doing extra work, is better than OOP CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Main reason for an advantage over OOP here is the lack of artificial problems arising from OOP-land, that have nothing to do with the problems at-hand, where problems at-hand (when solved) are what contributes to profit CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: I'm trying to talk about the difference between considering the "problem to solve" as A) living in abstract problem space; B) living on the hardware CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: OOP says to solve problems we organize things according to real-life intuition, and follow principles CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: I'm saying to solve problems we get our code to run on our hardware, and that's it CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Which heavily implies a case-by-case solution for each specific problem. AKA requires actual thinking and respect for each problem that comes up. CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: /rant I read none of this LMAO[2016-7-19. : 12:37 am] Sand Wraith -- Actually, I don't know what sacrifice you're really making/criticizing when it comes to OOP.[2016-7-19. : 12:36 am] Sand Wraith -- Isn't part of the whole OOP thing to remove the specifics of thinking? OOP-land problems are more intuitive for most people to deal with instead of writing optimized x86. |