https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo84LFzx5nI
Even attacks Smalltalk directly (which gave the world the GUI, the first WYSIWYG text editor, first font editor).
Meanwhile Casey spent ten years building, and never finishing, a game engine and game in C that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.

Maybe he's right

It was a nice history lesson.

I'm going to need a 30-second demonstration that he isn't yet another OOP crackpot before I'm going to watch a 2.5 hour video on this topic.

>>105952700 (OP)
all programming OOPs when you think about it

>>105952700 (OP)
I like how he just spends the first few minutes saying Thief is based

>>105952700 (OP)
He's spent decades using the same language in the same area of expertise exclusively on solo projects or extremely small teams. You can pretty safely assume you don't need to listen to him rant for 2.5 hours about an entire approach to programming in general.

>>105952700 (OP)
>Meanwhile Casey spent ten years building, and never finishing, a game engine and game in C that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.

its mostly because he's still making bank to this day on shit he need 30 years ago and can afford to be a lazy as shit

>>105952803
*shit he did

>>105952700 (OP)
It's nice that he's actually speaking with passion. I've seen to many talks of bored people reading crap out in monotone.

>>105952803
I really don't know what he does all day.
He has no kids and his aging parents live on the other side of the country.
Clearly he's not very physically active.
I know he's talked with JBlow about the TV shows he likes.
He's essentially a NEET at this point, I think.

>>105952772
the talk is more history and disproving the annoying "OOP was invented for big teams" nonsense.
When it was really about a couple men trying to be more productive in their solo projects with code-reuse.
If you want the TLDR talk thesis, it's basically
>ivan sutherland was a few steps from realizing ECS, and then because of Bjarne and others, we went the wrong direction with OOP
If you like CS/prog lang history, it's a good watch.

>>105952700 (OP)
I unironically think OP is Casey

>>105952961
>I really don't know what he does all day.
he's a consultant and basically a teacher with his Computer Enhance website, and he still programs professionally. he also making a comic with his partner.

he did say it straight up that his issue is game design and mechanics, he'll make a game once he's good enough at it or he founds someone to do it for him.
he's basically a tool maker and enginedev, some people enjoy making the tools themselves, and fail at making games with them.

>>105953045
>the talk is more history and disproving the annoying "OOP was invented for big teams" nonsense.
I can't say I have heard that claim before, but that is as you say clearly nonsense.

>ivan sutherland was a few steps from realizing ECS, and then because of Bjarne and others, we went the wrong direction with OOP
That kind of has an implied assumption that ECS stands in contrast to OOP, which it doesn't. I don't think he is one of those nitwits that conflates OOP with inheritance and polymorphism and such, so am I missing something there?

>>105953045
Those who forget history are born to repeat it. I think this talk should be mandatory for all CS students. It's insane how many good solutions died because of obscurity.
It kinda reminds me of a lisp and programming related history talk, but it never mentioned most of the things that Casey said.

>>105952700 (OP)
Who is this retard and why should I care?
Did he ever work on a team? Why is he using C++ as a reference for anything at all? That language is ass no matter which paradigm you use.

>>105953155
>That kind of has an implied assumption that ECS stands in contrast to OOP,
The connecting thread was how Sketchpad's data model was essentially just a DOD style fat-struct, and had no notion of "private", everything was fully inspectable and "public". Which led into how Simula continued the notion, but then Bjarne by happenstance, didn't like the transparent / "public" model (simula's "inspect") , which dramatically altered programming into the traditional private-by-default OOP model we know today.

>>105952700 (OP)
>2.5 hour talk
>encapsulations is... LE BAD!

if something is not accessible, you need to make a "needless" workaround, that makes program design more complicated. that what he dislikes it seems.
he still doesn't understand why would people want to use encapsulation and what are the benefits of it.

he thinks the good part of ECS is that it acts as one huge global variable.

>>105952700 (OP)
>that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.
have he demo it? how do you know? he claimed that he was building a unique thing, that isn't iteration of the same thing iirc.

anti-oop zealots always make me laugh with retarded arguments against it. they are never any good. well written oop is really easy to read and maintain. polymorphism reduces the amount of code you need to write and refactor. if you have actually written a C program you will soon discover you are passing a pointer to struct to many functions, and these functions only gets used with this struct. why not scope it to only that struct? but what about muh factory nigger bean singleton? if you want the functionality these patterns provide you will also have to write them in C. oop reigns supreme and that is why they are the most popular. you can have your hipster languages, but there is a reason all major software is written in oop.

I'm not a SE so maybe it's taken as read that ECS is superior but the whole 2hours is just citing sources that the OOP pioneers intended for inheritance to be a defining feature and we'd be on Mars if only they'd realised how revolutionary a global struct is?
This is not my area so I suppose most of this was lost on me.

>>105953045
ECS is literally anti-OOP, right? ECS basically tries to tell devs to use the stuff they
learned in Computer Architecture class.

>>105954051
wrong

it's funny, he looked into thief's ECS implementation, realized it's just bacically all OOP and nothing like today's definition of ECS and come up with a cope that it's not OOP that is bad actually, it's just "compilation time model hierarcy whatever" that is bad.

>>105952700 (OP)

>>105954051
ECS's got nothing to do with OOP. OOP is when you structure your code such that class invariances are reflected by your methods. Dynamic dispatch, inheritance, operator overloading, etc. Are concepts that were plugged on top of OOP later on, but they're dissociable from it.

ECS is just a way to change the memory layout of your structs/classes you have an array of them.

>>105953953
>well written oop is really easy to read and maintain
Can you link three examples from github?

>>105956287
In Muratorism ECS is when all object's fields are public and objects themselves are stored in arrays.

I watched his talk for 40 minutes and pan out. What does he trying to say again? I'm not going to watch it for another 1 hour 20 min

>>105956818
>What does he trying to say again?
don't worry about it pajeet

>>105956287
>class invariances
what a retarded misnomer, modern OOP has no fucking clue about any kind of invariant.

>>105956857
didn't ask you nocoder

>OOP
>ECS
Why not both? Many modern programming languages let you achieve the efficient memory layouts advocated by DOD enthusiasts while still retaining the best aspects of OOP.

>>105956868
a class that breaks its invariant won't work for so long, if it doesn't break immediately. so he's true about that.

>>105956888
Because OOP is antithetical to cache, and also has arbitrary red-tape

>>105956943
Explain Python and JS. They're pretty much OOP under the hood and produce the most elegant solutions. Even their functional programming is build on top of OOP.

>>105956969
>produce the most elegant solutions
lol

>>105956969
The two slowest programming languages that pay 0 mind to performance?
>elegant
both python and js fail to even be more expressive while sacrificing performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_(computing)

>>105952700 (OP)
this guy is clout chasing

I like virtual functions, I think they are neat

>>105956993
>s-slow
Chud. Nobody cares. The law if diminishing returns exist. A UI needs ro respond with 100ms for it to be acceptable.

Python and JS let you deliver complex software with acceptable performance at an unparalleled pace.

>>105957159
you have no bearing on the topic and aren't even in the same realm as it anymore

>>105957159
>100ms
>acceptable
<=10ms is acceptable

>>105956943
>Because OOP is antithetical to cache
how so? the classes don't actually get mapped to memory as is and you can keep a class small enough to fit in a cacheline.
>Countless indirections through virtual pointers and instruction cache blah blah
it's a necessity at this point. Linux kernel, one of the biggest C project, uses object like structures everywhere.

>>105953096
int32-d cheSegmentation fault Cannot access memory 0xpoop

>>105957217
>how so?
>it's a necessity at this point.
why do you answer your own question with the relevant contradiction, and then try to downplay the contradictions importance?

>>105957261
virtual pointers != OOP
retard

>>105957274
how so? What was the first relevant language to popularize them?

>>105957171
Let's see your high performance tcp client to an embedded device who's document says the device can handle 1 request per 100ms.

I hope you're not writing the gui app in c.

>>105957209
no 100ms is acceptable. Why do you need 10ms? You're not gaming.

>>105957288
>once again it's a nocoder retard that shit talks on OOP

>>105957296
ok, boomer.

>>105957299
Im just asking a question.
Which language brought virtual pointers (vtables) into relevance?

>>105957310
lisp

>>105957300
I bet £10 you can't tell the difference between a oage that loads in 10ms vs one that loads in 100ms on day to day use.

>>105957311
the great s*tan of anti-performance
thank you mccarthy, very cool

>>105957312
https://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116
>That speed is far faster than the 100 milliseconds suggested by previous studies.

>>105957318
nta, I don't know what kind of retarded thing you're trying to say. you can't handle nontrivial levels of complexity without any kind of abstraction. OOP is an abstraction, obviously. there's nothing about it that's 'antithetical to cache'. In fact, it's better in some case because inherited classes mapped next to each other so instructions about relevant data are more likely hit the cache

>>105957374
OOP isn't the only abstraction
abstraction doesn't require OOP

>>105953146
>>105952961
I'm pretty good at game design but bad with tools. it'd be nice to have someone like that pushing my sails, but I doubt we'd get along on project goals. my game doesn't need engine dev.

>>105957348
Chud you barely notice when your blinking.

>>105953146
>I won't complete my project because I haven't found the perfect solution
Is this the nigger people are taking advance from?

>>105957533
are you retarded?

>>105957656
You're a bigger retard. His issues are trivial. He has yet to produce a project to prove his points.

All he needs is 1 scalable project that demonstrates his thesis works.

>>105957694
so you are a retard, good to know

>>105957701
You're a bigger retard. Good to know.

>>105952700 (OP)
I've been saying this since the late 1980s. I don't know and don't care who the fuck he is, but he's right.

>>105952700 (OP)
>>105952786
>>105953854
>>105953953

you clearly didn't watch the video

the only thing of interest to me other than this being the 1000th time someone has shilled ECS is that apparently someone actually gave a talk on how Thief handles game objects

and now I'm just watching that instead because Thief is based

It's amazing how someone so presumably intelligent and experienced at programming can get so fucking mad at the idea of grouping data types and functions together like a little kid who just cant understand other peoples opinions

>>105956888
beef looks cool until you try building it yourself on linux. Its fucking hell and a real pain in the ass to setup.

>>105953146
>he's basically a tool maker and enginedev
he's never made an engine and the last time he made a tool was what, 20 years ago?

The statement about the compile-time hierarchy that matches the domain model is really insightful and i'm glad I heard it

>>105953146
>he'll make a game once he's good enough
Hes literally over 50 years old, teenagers have been publishing games

>>105952773
not really

is casey a fucking powerlifter? he's jacked

>>105958767
>how Thief handles game objects
it's basically like unity. in classic ECS there is no "querying" components.
void Update() {
comp1 = entity.GetFooComopnent();
comp2 = entity.GetBarComponent();
FooBar(comp1, comp2);
}

>>105959410
This is completely wrong retard

notch: "i don't care about optimization, i want my game to run on cheap opengl 1.2 intel gpus"
>made the most influential game of this millennium

casey: "you should never hesitate to rewrite your entire engine to earn a few nanoseconds on that memory fetch"
>never produced anything at all

>>105960608
Both are failures who will never pass on their genes. Programmers are pathetic.

>the most comprehensive and definitive chronology of the origins of OOP
>an insightful stroll through forgotten CS results from 60 years ago
and incels on this board only care about TL:DW why OOP le bad

>>105960660
notch has a daughter, retard.

>>105960682
Oh right that happened before his turbo chud arc where this billionaire chose to live alone.

>>105952700 (OP)
I wasn't convinced
And I would like my time back

>>105957128
they are neat but counting on compilers devirting was a mistake

>this one game was programmed like shit, looking like a ps1 game but running at 45 fps on a 4090 BUT it was very successful
>this means you should also make your game like a jeet from the slums of Lucknow
This level of thirst for money and lack of appreciation of a work beyond the money it nets you is definitely a sign of third worlders.

Not everyone is trying to escape the third world slums, some people have other things in mind than only money.

And yet here we are and nothing will change

>>105952700 (OP)
worth the watch, OOP zealouts btfo eternally

>>105957128
Casey speaks of this in this very talk.

>>105952700 (OP)
did he turn off the comments again because his fwagiwle wittle ego can't take it?

>>105953953
no one with sufficient brain cells to operate a web browser can be this retarded, can they?

>>105957217
youre almost there. come on anon, work those brain cells

>>105957296
like fuck it is. don't you have a lizard to rape saaar?

>>105962168
imagine being so butthurt that you re-reply to a post hours later

I hate him. Not because of his opinions, there's plenty of frameworks in the world. It's because he's a preachy faggot.
Bjarne "Chad" Strongsoup wanted C with classes. Did he bitch about it? Did he pester every C developer that they needed classes?
No.
He fucking made his own language, with classes. And he built a compiler for it.

What does virgin muratory do? he bitches, he bothers people just trying to make a living, he acts like an insufferable vegan
He should go make his language and then people who agree with his views would adopt it. Or he should just go to C conferences and give talks about C is that's what he likes.

>>105962311
vidrel bjarne dabbing on mollyman

>>105962212
im not whatever anon has got you hot under the collar. go beat off and chill out man.

>>105959017
I ran into him once, he's tall (like 6'6" easily) and legitimately physically intimidating if he wasn't so nice

>>105952700 (OP)
>which gave the world the GUI, the first WYSIWYG text editor
Those are still garbage even to this day.

>>105952773
Good morning, saar.

>>105952786
>My OOPslop approach is wholesome and valid, because I work for le big slopcorp.
Kek.

>>105953854
>>encapsulations is... LE BAD!
This but unironically.

>>105958261
It's not really worth the watch. Really 90% of it is a history presentation serving as the backing material for yet another of instance of his pointless grandstanding. It could at least be a nice history lesson if you slimmed it down and cut out the useless complaints about how people don't do things the way he likes.

>>105958903
he's also an idiot who thinks johnathon blow is a good game designer

>>105962311
Yeah this guy does an inordinate amount of bitching when you consider what he's actually accomplished. At least Jon Blowhard is theoretically making a programming language.

>>105962535
if you are capable of structuring and scoping your code correctly, encapsulation will never get in your way (or if it does, it means you made a mistake with defining the scope of the code, in which case it's good that it has been made immediately visible)
if you're unable to write code that doesn't constantly impede you because of its scope constraints, it's not a problem with encapsulation

>>105962752
Encapsulation sucks because it does the exact opposite of what OOP is supposed to do: make resuing code easier.
If someone wrote a library with encapsulated data and you want to access it in your program you now have to reimplement the entire thing yourself for no reason.
If they didn't arbitrarily restrict you there'd be no issue.
I'm fine with encapsulation being a warning, or being able to mark code as not breaking encapsulation for the purposes of static analysis, but nothing should prevent me, the programmer, from doing whatever I want as long as I explicitly acknowledge what I'm doing.

>>105952700 (OP)
Just so that I understand, as I am no programmer myself.

He's mad that people do this?

class car (
Doors = numdoors
Wheels = numwheels
Speed = numspeed

)

Car (Doors: 2, Wheels: 2, Speed: 100)

Instead of the properties of the car just hanging around in variables that anything can dip into if it's a Car or a Building or anything else?

>>105962853
My younger self always wrote something like
int car_doors[1000];
int car_wheels[1000];
int car_speeds[1000];

until I learned OOP.

>>105952700 (OP)
>Meanwhile Casey spent ten years building, and never finishing, a game engine and game in C that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.
maybe he should just stick to giving talks from now on.

>>105962311
>Did he pester every C developer that they needed classes?

>>105962893
He seems pretty annoyed but the only example I can think of is something like this. This seems dumb to complain about. The computer doesn't care in the end.

object1 (
stuff
)
object2 (
stuff
)
object3 (
stuff
)

bigobject1 (
object1
object2
object3
)

Instead of this at the top
stuff1
stuff2
stuff3

bigobject1 (
stuff1
stuff2
stuff3
)

If someone smarter can come up with an example so I can get the OOP complaints

>>105962823
oh no its retarded

>>105963012
kek

>>105963012
Thanks, I remembered that anecdote when I read >>105962311, but I couldn't remember the source, and I couldn't find it.

>>105952700 (OP)
>sepplesniggers put class names in snake_case and method names in PascalCase
holy fuck never have i ever seen such a backwards ass naming convention
fuck bjarne that fucking subhuman nigger

>>105962535
ok pajeet

>>105963537
thats being intentionally obtuse. no one follows that convention

>>105962823
>If someone wrote a library with encapsulated data and you want to access it in your program
case in point - it's not a problem of encapsulation, you just completely miss the point of it (it's not even code reuse)

first: it's not about data, it's about state
second: you're not meant to access state because it's internal and integral to the library. effectively, you should not see nor care about the internal state and only use the public interface of the library
if the library is missing some specific functionality or mode of operation, it should be added to the library as an integral part and not some external hack that modifies state, compromising the library's integrity

let's say there's some library that parses text line-by-line and it splits lines by looking for "\r\n". you, annoyed with encapsulation and also that it uses Windows-specific linebreaks, hack into the internal state and modify it to be "\n".
now anything else in the library that assumed lines end with "\r\n" is broken. what's worse is that it'll stop working seemingly randomly: only when your code begins to modify the state, which might not be at the beginning of the program. and the worst part is that there's no trace you modified it so it becomes a nightmare to debug (impossible if there's no access to your code)

>>105964416
why can't windows into posix

>>105960532
you realize it's the same as GetFooComponent(entity), right?
you realize this can be implemented as
typedef Entity int;
FooComponent* foos;
FoorComponent GetFooComponent(Entity entity) {
return &foos[entity];
}

right?

>>105964416
If I want to do that, I should be allowed to. Full stop, there's no argument against it. If I tell the computer to fuck itself it better bend over and spread it.

>>105964468
this is how ECS was used before turboautism with "ecs as database with queries". most games were programmed in simple unity-style OOP scripts.

>>105952700 (OP)
>hey ChatGPT, resume this bullshit in 100 words.

>>105964546
Use reflection, then

>>105962098
>ad hominem
not sending their best

>>105952700 (OP)
It's a nice history lesson. I'm halfway trough.

>>105956287
ECS is a snake oil where people are trying to sell each other. We have an "ECS" implementation where components are stored in unordered maps, mainly for random access. And components can have functions etc.

A generic ECS doesn't really work in practice. Rarely you have generic components that do not belong to a single system (like transform component) so makes little sense to decouple code and data. And generally random access is a requirement as well

>>105964704
>SecurityException in your path

>>105952700 (OP)
Maybe it's bad for his autistic hobby projects. In the real world OOP is just too convenient.

>>105953045
Basically, it's all because Bjarne was like:

>>105952700 (OP)
Only 2 hours? I could go on for days about why OOP is bad...

>>105965638
Yeah the windows start button using all your resources is really convenient you dumb jeet.

>>105952700 (OP)
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.

>>105965886
at least it works as expected. on troonix it will crash and format your ssd when you press it

>>105965808
no one care about you.

>>105965029
awful presumptive of you to assume a hominus

OOP is bad only when it is in the hands of retarded fuckers, which is what the likes of UML enabled - non-programmers intruding the industry and sperging out about fucking retarded diagrams that are 90% the same shit, getting in the way of actual developers.
Proper OOP, OOP that doesn't involve 17 trillion nested groups, is perfectly fine.
Use OOP where it is required, not fucking everywhere.
That goes for functional and everything else, each have their advantages and best use-cases, a single method does not work for everything, it is always fucking ass, ALWAYS, it will always be the inferior method when mixed paradigms work better.
>>105960608
Ironically his game used to be able to run on weak-ass netbooks at fast speeds, modern Minced Rafts can barely run on a decent gaming machine from 10 years ago without stutter.
The Minecraft codebase was always terrible, but it only got worse as time went on.
A bunch of hack developers who don't know optimization if it slapped them in the face.
The amount of lag spikes that fucking game has had over the years is absurd! STILL HAS
Most of the advancements of that game engine were all fucking stolen mod codebases lazily and hackily added in.
That time they added in McRegion to the game, kek, what a fucking lagfest that was, walking between region borders could lag the shit out of you if there were loads of mobs nearby you, god forbid your poor ass made a mob farm near a region border, enjoy your multiple second lags

>>105952700 (OP)
waste of time to watch, literally didn't give any good advice. meh.

>>105968329
This, I watched it expecting him to at least give some non-OOP solution to problems to which OOP is commonly applied, but instead he just went over the history of it.

If you want people to stop using OOP, give alternatives. I don't give a fuck about some guy in the 60s making a proto-ECS, I'm trying to solve a problem today.

>>105952700 (OP)
Who is this guy?

>>105952772
I wouldn't call it a rant talk. that made it watchable.

>>105960608
>never produced anything at all
casey worked at rad and made video codecs used in gorillions of games

>>105968988
>worked at
my uncle worked at microsoft and made windows.

>boomer nocoder tells his boring boomer stories
>meanwhile, OOP chads keep coding away, like they have been for the last 50 years

>>105969421
yeah, really amazing writing the 50th CRUD app whose classes have trivial getters and setters for each member with a 5 deep inheritance hierarchy

>>105969490
is it possible for anyone to criticize OOP without using a strawman

>>105969543
no

>>105968988
>casey worked at rad and made video codecs used in gorillions of games
Great, so he's productive when he has Jeff Roberts or JBlow tardwrangling him.
What has he accomplished in the last 15 years?

>>105952700 (OP)
I use OOP in C sometimes if I see it beneficial for an use-case. I don't care what these faggots say, Casey spent years making his game and quit.

>>105965808
>Only 2 hours? I could go on for days about why OOP is bad...
Can you provide one single actual practical example?

Like just some basic pseudo code to show an example of OOP and it being bad and the non-OOP version so that I can see and compare the two?

>>105952786
>He's spent decades using the same language in the same area of expertise exclusively on solo projects or extremely small teams
what's wrong with this?

>>105963093
the computer doesn't care about anything, but OOP adds enormous performance overhead at scale

>>105970204
>the computer doesn't care about anything, but OOP adds enormous performance overhead at scale
Example?

>>105970265
ECS vs non-ECS

>>105970204
> unneeded performance overheads
This is true, as a practical matter, but it doesn't have to be the case. It just usually is.
I’ve worked on many large code-bases, the things always degenerates into implementing new oo techniques and following “rules” perfectly to the detriment of quality, speed, size, functionality, etc.

>>105970401
I has one developer come to me trying to fix a bug that got assigned to them, and this code was well-known to be a “software engineer”
This developer was almost hysterical, since they “couldn’t find the code” it was such a mess. It took a look and pretty much agreed.

>>105956888
Examples like this really don't make SoA a justice.
Dynamic allocator will most like instantiate the objects created in loop in standalone examples like this in continuous memory anyway. All you really show is overhead of that one pointer dereference overhead in contrast to small cheap function. There isn't really any cache inefficiency involved, and it's only 2x slower. ffs C#/Java programmers (or python/javascript/lua) pay larger overhead by just picking a different tools.
What ppl should really illustrate is how expensive even the array-of-structs (let alone array-of-pointers, especially in fragmented memory) when you start growing the monolithic struct. Just slap few std::strings there, at a few flags, few members. Over time it gets 10x-20x slower, without any indirection involved. And it's not just code that uses these new members, it's all existing code.
SoA just makes this performance aspect predictable as the project grows.

>>105952700 (OP)
who cares

>>105969543
oop doesn't get along with cache so it's objectively harmful

>>105962893
holy shit lol I remember this style

>>105970265
>>105970204
Beyond the low level issues, the biggest thing I've seen at my jobs is that programmers get so wrapped up in OO they forget that we need to ways to work on collections of objects.
So if you say like, "I want to get the average salary of this division that contains 100 employees", the only methods provided make you do something like this:
emps = []
for (id in list_of_100_employee_ids) {
emps.push( Employee->get(id) )
}
avg = sum( map( emps -> emp.salary) ) / 100

which ends up being horrible for performance because of SQL N+1, and ->get() calculating a bunch of crap you don't want. For example, you only care about salary but here it might be figuring out # of vacation days left or feedback report status or all sorts of other stuff.
And then, the programmers have pushed so much logic into the application level, that it's impossible to write a simple sql query getting the avg salary of the 100.
That is OO hell, imo.

>>105970630
>which ends up being horrible for performance because of SQL N+1, and ->get() calculating a bunch of crap you don't want.
SQl N+1 never becomes a problem cause in any application, you're getting a list of collections based on that moment of time in a batch. Yes, present state of data is not guaranteed but thats the point of distributed systems and the tradeoff. In any average and normal case, this is not a problem. What you wrote is readable and usually isn't slow enough to be a problem.

>>105970630
how is this problem inherent to OOP?
same issue could happen with procedural code where a library doesn't provide a whole collection for you to iterate

So far I have asked 5 times in this thread for one single actual real world example of what Casey is freaking out about and nobody can even provide one example?

I see a lot of history and OOP = bad but not one actual example.

I am not a programmer, I've only worked in scripting languages for various tasks (I run a Powershell website) and visual basic back in high school to make a calculator or whatever. So I am not stuck on any one method of doing things, but if I don't have a side by side example how am I supposed to understand what he is even whining about that is specific to OOP and not just doing something dumb

>>105971118
>I am not a programmer,
then you literally could not understand the explanation, retard.

>>105970967
cause he's a dumbass

>>105970967
it's not inherent to it, it's just programmers are guided toward this in my experience. they start a new file by making class Employee, then continue to adding attribute, then private calculation functions, and years later there is a mess of complexity that is only accessible behind a ->get() that can only be done one at a time, and portions of it cannot be pulled apart easily as they would in procedural code.
because OO code is often oriented around having a fully filled out Employee instance, and procedural code more often doesn't expect you to have all sorts of things all the time

>>105971374
this sounds like a jeet skill issue or something equally retarded

>>105971400
it's not even a jeet issue.
most programmers will irrationally screech at you for just making everything public and directly accessing things.

>>105970703
>N+1 is 0
>time is cheap and scale is free
>good enough for low standards is perfect
ok

>>105971534
All this scale shit is because of the endless money and endless chase for "scale" that globalist tier companies enjoy. Software being pushed this far into the impossible is because of jews and schemers in power. Time is cheap to these faggots with infinite printing money but there is always a cost.

>>105971419
you never refactored somehing big. you try to change something in one place and suddenly you have dozens of broken dependencies. you try to fix a couple of them, and now you have 2x more broken lines of code.

encapsulation is an attempt to reduce the amount of cross dependencies in your code, essentially.

>>105971190
>then you literally could not understand the explanation, retard
So you don't know either, good to know. You are just going with whatever this fad is then.

>>105971747
literally just google "advantages of ecs" or something

>>105953165
I think all people that talk about OOP should be forced to address Common Lisp's CLOS.

>>105971779
LOL the replies in this threat are very telling.

What I have taken from this is OOP is a great way to keep things organized and following OOP have no negative impact on a single thing that anyone can actually explain. It's more like a feeling that it is bad for some reason.

>>105971118
You wont learn anything in shit flings like this. Both poopjeets and ecstroons will pilpul, lie and redefine terms because they don't care about anything but protecting their ideology.
Effectively no one uses ECS proper in games and very few games use OOP proper. What almost everyone uses are "entity systems" which is just a vague reference to having data (typically arrays of structs) and code operating on them in whatever implementation suites the game/engine.
>inb4 the last one is ECS
You are a massive retarded gorilla nigger faggot if you think that.

ECS has been astroturfed by Rustroons in recent years to cope with being borrow checker cucks and OOP niggers will simultaneously be "umm actually everything is OOP" and also "muh pure Smalltalk" fags. Both are niggerfaggots and to be avoided. Do not fall for the false dichotomy kikery.

>>105971809
you're not a programmer, i'm not going to spend an hour onboarding you just for you to dismiss it out of hand

>>105971810
I believe that you are correct

>>105971823
If I am smart enough to dismiss anything you say then I am smart enough to understand one single example you can provide off OOP causing a problem and whatever your alternative is doing it better. Just one example

So far it is just it makes things harder to understand when you have functions that call functions that call other functions, and okay, fair enough, but I don't have issues following that chain of events so if you do then I can understand how you would want another method, which you are of course free to use.

>>105971809
the problem with OOP is inheritance
traits/composition are far superior
multiple dispatch is also cool too, but you only find that in languages like Common Lisp/Julia

>>105971118
>>105971747
Nobody is going to waste time on retards, sorry anon. Keep using OOP or whatever.

>>105971859
you're stupid enough to dismiss my obviously true assertion that OOP adds performance overhead and also stupid enough to think being able to dismiss things makes anyone smart

>>105971898
>OOP adds performance overhead
Interesting, care to provide a real world example of how?

>>105971925
accessing N elements in a contiguous array is faster than accessing N elements in N objects
you're going to think you won because i stopped replying after this, but you're just stupid

>>105971925
Not him but
>care to provide a real world example of how fire burns you?

>>105971925
>>105971944
*accessing 1 element in N objects
bye retard

>>105971944
now remove an object or update/read multiple properties from an object

>>105971944
>accessing N elements in a contiguous array is faster than accessing N elements in N objects
I would agree there, but it seems like this is controllable with better programming practices no? Like you can do what you are saying there poorly with your OOP alternative, correct?

>>105971955
You said the same thing as the dude there.
So far this is the only example but you don't have to do that?
As in you can make OOP shitty and whatever method you like also shitty on purpose by doing this

Really seems like a skill issue to me overall. I'm not dismissing the concern, I am asking for an example, and nobody can type a code based one

>>105971989
>N*N = 1*N

>>105971999
>N*N = 1*N
Okay literally just don't do that?
Again, this is your anti OOP example, where's your alternative example?

>>105971944
Object entity
{
float x,y,z;
move(nx ny nz) { ... };
}

Entity entities[1000];


the memory layout should be the same than a data structure.

>>105971810
>heh everyone is stupid but me
>it's not a true XYZ
>actually [untrue statement] ...[word i don't understand]
>btw i will provide 0 actual information or insight
what an abhorrent meta-post.
btw retard, ECS/DOD resurgence started with mike actons talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc
which was around the time fungus lang was just hitting 1.0 and way before b*vy even existed

>>105968514
I assume these people would seethe at FP if it were the dominant paradigm. they just hate that complex software exist.

I use factory design pattern all the time. it served me well so far

>>105972105
>DOD = ECS
(You) are an extremely black, retarded gorilla niggerfaggot and have no idea what you are talking about.
I literally covered your ignorance in my post and you would have noticed if you weren't functionally illiterate. Stop parroting from your favourite e-celeb retards.

>>105952700 (OP)
>dude just put all your data in different places
Why is he ignoring that ECS is only good because of the how modern hardware works?

>>105972061
this is like the absolute object-iest ceiling of ecs and basically neither disproves nor demonstrates anything meaningful in this conversation

>>105972165
i gave you an object.

>>105972226
agreed

>>105970599
retard
>>105971374
>they start a new file by making class Employee, then continue to adding attribute, then private calculation functions, and years later there is a mess of complexity that is only accessible behind a ->get()
>mess of complexity that is only accessible behind a ->get()
how is it a "mess of complexity" if it's behind a simple get() method? you're not even supposed to be having to know the implementation details of a class. If a get() function does fuck ton of things that takes a lot of time it's developer's fault to not document it in its interface. the "mess of complexity" is simply there to protect the class invariant.

it's astounding how so many people working in an engineering branch can be foreign to its methodologies

>>105972302
>retard
not an argument, refute it or don't respond

>>105972321
retard
>>105957217
>>105957374

>>105972344
i hope you aren't quoting your own posts

>>105972360
>retard doesnt understand how caching works, claims OOP is "antithetical"
>gets assblasted, goes for the second round
yeah, those are my posts

>>105972455
i knew that was you.
btw you literally agreed with me
>>Countless indirections through virtual pointers and instruction cache blah blah
>it's a necessity at this point

>>105952700 (OP)
Too much oop is bad. I think you need a happy medium between functions and objects.

If you go too far with the SOLID principals you are in for a world of pain.

>>105972302
that's what I'm talking about, you call ->get() and it calculates stuff you do not need and you don't have a choice. there is no way to just get the salary. the "not supposed to know the internals of the class" is stopping me from making fast software because it's slow and I can't change it.

>>105972464
are you a middle schooler? You claimed it was "antithetical". I said no and told exactly how it can really harm caching. also followed by mentioning that in some cases it can be better because relevant data - inherited fields and methods - are placed next to each other so they are more likely to hit the cache.

>>105972513
I think the entire point of the talk was OOP is just a philosophical paradigm for drawing lines of encapsulation and that's wrong because you should be drawing lines based on how it best maps to the actual problem you are trying to solve.

>>105972529
>it calculates stuff you do not need
ever thought that if the developer didn't provide you a way to access var X in instant time then maybe it's intentional? the classes on OOP are independent beings with their own abstract states and invariants. if it calculates stuff, it's because someone, you or the class itself, needs it.

>>105970630
why are you building a container of objects if all you need is one of its members?

>>105972648
the developer who created the OOP class is putting a barrier that stops users of it from writing performant code. They think they need to do all this special stuff, and maybe it is intentional for how they imagined the class being used, but if OOP wasn't involved, it would be easier to write performant code. this is the point I'm trying to get across. OOP promotes class writers to make their own 'kingdom' of rats nest calculations, which makes it difficult to tell the class to do only the things you need. It's like asking a friend to go to next door to get a pen and he insists on driving to the library to get today's newspaper first, but even though you don't need it - but he has decided it is intentional because his day always begins with driving to the library and getting the newspaper.

>>105972875
none of the shit you're complaining about is specific to OOP

>>105952700 (OP)
If you close the window it's as of he never existed

>>105972875
And not using OOP makes the entire project an empire of rats' nest calculations.

>>105972587
>how it maps to the actual problem you are trying to solve
problems do change and evolve. if you hardcode your solution by taking a specific problem you're gonna be almost certainly fucked later. objects let you decouple so many things. design patterns takes it even further on a macro scale. it's all for decreasing coupling so you can effortlessly change or debug individual parts of your program.

>>105972875
>the developer who created the OOP class is putting a barrier that stops users of it from writing performant code.
this start to sound more like a schizo talk rather than discussion about good-bad sides of OOP.
>this is the point I'm trying to get across.
I don't get your point at all because it all sound like some nonsense. you just claim that developers put unnecessary work in methods because...? what those calculations are for if not protecting the class invariant? how are you so sure that you won't break it by accessing a variable directly / modifying?
honestly I don't know if I'm even talking to someone who coded before. you do really believe that nothing bad could happen if you went absolute caveman mode with all the data that's contained in a program? do you even heard formal safety?

>>105952700 (OP)
if he's so smart why doesn't he have a job in the field and instead spends his time grifting ted talk shit?

>>105972886
no one in this thread can tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.

Did no one watch the video? Reading this thread was painful

>>105973230
I am watching it but I am not a programming so it is a struggle, 10:57 - 11:11 really just flew by so many people in the thread

If everything is a file why not have everything be functions that can communicate with each other freely?

OOP is indoctrination. And we are at the tail end of getting the renegade ending.
I agree with Casey. Data oriented programming is the only way forward.

>negaman
what did Casey mean by this?
I don't buy that man is meatball.

>>105973230
>Did no one watch the video?
I did. I learned that whomever that Sutherland dude was he was a genius.
And I learned that Casey was frothing at the mouth and yelling at a conference for something that hasn't helped him make a 2D game even though he's been doing it for 10 years in a row.

>>105963012
>pic
Can you claim he's wrong though. Someone post that chimera C++ pic asking to be killed

>>105973230
Why would you waste 2 and half hours listening to Casey complain about things? Maybe if it was written instead of spoken, so I could cut 2 hours off of it. Even then it's just another rant by a guy who hasn't produced anything of note with his superior approach to programming in decades.

>>105973279
you should listen to mike acton on that topic instead

>>105974147
It's a form of sealioning. They produce something time consuming, claim it makes their case rock solid, and you are unqualified to have an opinion unless you waste a large amount of time on their low information density presentation.
There are succinct arguments against OOP that have been around almost as long as OOP has been. They've been considered and some have found other paradigms a better fit for their development process, while most are content with OOP.
It's a good idea for anyone who is serious about software development to read up on the arguments against OOP and then decide for themselves. No need to listen to someone whine on for hours about the psychological damage it does to his ego that not everyone does things the same way he does.

>>105974147
>>105974298
Yeah that's the point I was making, no one actually watched the video and OP made a catchy headline to bait people. He doesn't actually argue against OOP or say anywhere he doesn't like OOP, the entire presentation was actually about how wonderful OOP is but people misuse it to create slow/unmaintainable software. Again, nobody ITT watched the video and just argued a phantom + OP is a faggot as usual

>>105974490
>He doesn't actually argue against OOP or say anywhere he doesn't like OOP, the entire presentation was actually about how wonderful OOP is
how could you possibly come to this conclusion?
>"So that's the 35 year mistake, it's the distance between those two years [1963] - [1998]"
>"[1963], the year in which we could have had the ECS, because the first person who sort of did something like that (Sketchpad)"
>[1998] The year in which we actually got ECS [referring to Thief the game]
The majority of the talk was a history lesson on how "modern" OOP led us astray.
Ivan Sutherland was NOT doing OOP in 1960, and casey argues it was closer to DOD.

>>105974566
>how could you possibly come to this conclusion?
6:30 ~ 7:00

>>105974587
that was referring to being able to do the functionality it provides without the incorrect mindset, not literally advocating for OOP itself.

>>105974603

>Meanwhile Casey spent ten years building, and never finishing, a game engine and game in C that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.
In the last 10 years I've seen a lot of software come out and none of it has been particularly notable outside of remarking on annoyances and failures.
So it really doesn't matter to me if you can shit out several programs in a decade, it matters what those programs are, and what their merits are. I'd much rather see someone put in the time to write good software that is going to remain good, than have lots of unmaintainable fleeting projects that won't last to the end of their publishing year, let alone 10 years.
Meanwhile you see people spend an effort on writing good software, publish it, and then people continue to run it without problems for the next several decades, again outlasting all the other shitters.
The bad shit comes out fast, and it doesn't last, ever.
The good shit comes out slow, and it lasts, because it was specifically made to.

>>105970145
It's like a burger flipper working in fast food talking down on a chef that works at an upscale restaurant.

>>105970081
>basic pseudo code to show an example of OOP
That's the problem friend, OOP complicates everything it touches. Asking for a basic example is like asking for a banana tree to give you apples. There is no simple OOP. OOP is a spaghetti code generator by its very nature. The more OOP you have in your code the worse it gets over time exponentially.

>>105970081
Anyway you want an example okay here you go.

class A : B {
constructor
destructor
public:
getter
setter
private:
yourmum'sloveletter
mutex
}

a = A()
runInParallelOverData(a, data) // I can't let you do that Dave


Non-OOP
function1(input){
do stuff here
return output
}
function2(input, input2, context) {
do stuff
return output
}

runInParallelOverData(function1, data) // just works! google pure functions if you don't understand why


There, enjoy.

>>105974688
>I'd much rather see someone put in the time to write good software that is going to remain good
he hasn't done that either
he hasn't made anything

>>105974800
This very thread is about one of his public published talks on software quality.
I can't even humor this level of denial and delusion. It's just aggravating.

>>105974834
He hasn't made any SOFTWARE
Why should anyone listen to a dude telling other dudes how to program when he's never even made anything

>>105974688
handmade hero took seemingly so much time because he didn't work on it outside of streams, which were roughly 1 hour per week. that's so little time to get anything done. I probably spend more time jerking off in a week.

>>105974845
You're trying to convince someone who is already aware of Casey's past published works.
What am I supposed to say to that.

>>105974859
Casey has no "published works"
He has made small contributions to the software other people made

>>105974857
stop beating your dick like it owes you money and find a woman

>>105974866
Again, I don't know why you're writing things like that to me. I already know that's not the case. It should be obvious that will not convince me and I'm not sure what you're even trying to convey. Are you just complaining at me for someone to listen?

>>105974845
>Why should anyone listen to a dude telling other dudes how to program when he's never even made anything
>I am a programmer who specializes in game engine research and development.
I don't know if that logic tracks, plenty of people listen researchers in other fields, why should this one be any different?

Furthermore he is just providing sources and giving his opinion, he isn't presenting his opinion as gospel

Very disrespectful.

>>105974797
this shows nothing besides the fact that you are a tard who heard "functional programming good" and now has to parrot it. this in no way provides any reason to why its bad. they are not even comparable code.

>>105974845
>Why should anyone listen to a dude telling other dudes how to program when he's never even made anything
That's the majority of academia for computer subjects. How is this different?
Researchers don't usually write software either but developers still implement their papers.

>>105974884
>I already know that's not the case.
No you don't
He wrote the API for the Granny animation system - didn't make the animation system
Made a small contribution to the The Witness
Worked on Bink, didn't write the codec itself though
So what do you think he's actually made?

>>105974886
>I don't know if that logic tracks
Would you listen to a virgin tell you how to have sex?
>he isn't presenting his opinion as gospel
he does that all the time

>>105974905
>No you don't
The fact that you feel the need to speak for me, tells me enough. I'll just respond in kind.
We're done interacting, according to you.

>>105974905
>Would you listen to a virgin tell you how to have sex?
If that virgin was a sex researcher sure why not, do you think the first astronauts or deep sea divers needed someone to do it before them to tell them what to do?
>he does that all the time
he isn't doing it this video, this is the only video of his I have seen

>>105974909
I asked you a question
What do you think he's made?

>>105974915
Programming is a craft
The people with the best advice to give on the craft are the people who succeed at it

>>105974892
k
Don't know why I bother with retards like you. The very first line already shows why it's bad, if you had a brain you'd see it.

>>105974918
>I asked you a question
And? It didn't convince me, I explained why it didn't convince me.
>What do you think he's made?
You're trying to convince me he hasn't made anything and now you're asking for things he's made.
Are you sure about his history or not?
Make your point. Talking to you is agonizing and you said that we were done but you keep going.

>>105974923
1. Making software doesn't automatically mean success
2. That is again why he cited the opinions of developers much more accomplished than himself on nearly every slide

>>105974845
>He hasn't made any SOFTWARE
He has a whole website with his software and research papers. What the fuck are you talking about? How many papers have you written?

>>105974923
>The people with the best advice to give on the craft are the people who succeed at it
I don't need legs to tell you how to jump hurdles.

>>105974939
>Talking to you is agonizing
That's hilarious coming from the guy engaging in sanctimonious mental gymanastics instead of having an honest conversation
If you disagree with what I said then you can tell me why you disagree, tell me what you think he's made and why I'm wrong

>>105974941
>He has a whole website with his software and research papers
Yeah I've been over his three contributions to other peoples software projects, they're miniscule

>>105974953
He probably hasn't made anything notable enough to be in the bot's training data.

>>105974953
>sanctimonious mental gymanastics
You're goading, and I'm responding, sincerely.
>If you disagree with what I said then you can tell me why you disagree
I did. You're stating something factually wrong, directly to me, someone who already knows that's not true.
I don't know how to word that any differently to be more obvious, I already know your statement is false, and deception via a false premise depends on me not knowing that it's false.
>tell me what you think he's made and why I'm wrong
Aren't you the one trying to argue? Wrong about what?
You're trying to convince me that he hasn't made anything. I have no argument whatsoever.

>>105974975
Casey has made 3 small contributions to other peoples projects. That's what it says on his website, he's made videos about his contributions to the witness and granny. That;s not impressive and doesn't make him an accomplished programmer

>>105974986
You're entitled to your opinion, but stating it to me has not changed mine.
This entire chain is so bizarre that I'm struggling to believe it's not parody.
If you're the anon trying to convince me that he has no merits as a programmer, and has done no work previously, especially not published works, then going out of your way to show me a list of his credits, TWICE, is a fatally bad tactic.

>>105974996
Casey hasn't published any software projects. He's made small contributions to the projects of others

>>105974923
how do you manage to tie your shoes without drowning?

>>105974986
>>105974959
Are you the guy that thinks the number of lines means betterer?
> I added 1 million lines of code saar

>>105975008
no?

>>105975000
I believe you said that already. Repeating it has not made it any more or less true.
I guess the question is, what are you telling me this for?

>>105975011
Why is anyone posting anything? Deep question bro

>>105975019
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked.
I pointed out already why it's strange.
You're replying to me, with something I already know is false, and then arguing against yourself.
Do you just want me to read it? Or what?

>>105974946
You need to be good at something to tell other people how to be good at it

>>105974931
inheritance filters mongrels like you? inheritance is used all of the time in C code bases. i really shouldnt bother with retards like you
#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct base {
int i;
int j;
} base;

typedef struct derived {
base b;
int k;
} derived;

void print_base(base* b)
{
printf("i:%d, j:%d\n", b->i, b->j);
}

int main()
{
derived d = {{69, 420}, 1337};
print_base((base*) &d);
return 0;
}

>>105975034
Why are you replying to me when you just want to jerk yourself off over how smart and morally righteous you think you are

>>105975035
That hasn't stopped you.

>>105975044
I don't tell other people how to be good at programming

>>105975043
You replied to me first and I'm asking for clarification.
>you just want to jerk yourself off over how smart and morally righteous you think you are
Where's this coming from?

>>105975054
argumentation is a craft
the people with the best advice to give on the craft are the people who succeed at it

>>105975059
Either we can talk about the topic or you can continue to masturbate on your own

>>105975054
You're telling other people how to tell other people.

>>105975067
yeah, that's what I said, why are you repeating it back to me

>>105975067
>uncle bob has entered the chat

>>105975071
I'm saying Casey is someone who is telling people how to program despite never having released anything

>>105975069
I don't know what the topic is because you refuse to clarify. Case in point.

>>105975075
I clarify and you just keep doing mental gymnastics instead of engaging in honest discussion

>>105975075
>>105975085
oy vey, i don't know who is jewing who anymore

>>105975074
do you know what a no true scotsman fallacy is?

>>105975085
I don't know what part of my post is dishonest, and I've been completely transparent.
I'm guessing this is projection.
I've posted my summaries, from my perspective, and you don't seem to disagree with them, but you're also not saying anything new anymore.
I'll do it again.
For some reason you replied to me with a false statement, I guess as a means to try and convince me of something.
I told you that won't work, and why it won't work.
If there's something more you want to hear from me, you have to be more direct.

>>105975100
Are you fucking serious right now? You seriously see no issue in a guy with a platform saying "the way everyone programs is shit, my way is better" and he hasn't actually made anything of note despite being a programmer for 30+ years? He claims to be a game engine researcher and he hasn't even fucking worked on a game engine

>>105975103
You're a smart guy, you know exactly what I'm saying, but you're being deliberately obtuse
So you can either be honest or the discussion can end here

>>105975110
>Are you fucking serious right now? You seriously see no issue in a guy with a platform saying "the way everyone programs is shit, my way is better" and he hasn't actually made anything of note despite being a programmer for 30+ years?
Anon, if you're not joking, that's the status quo and has been for many years. >>105974893

>>105975110
>"the way everyone programs is shit, my way is better"
Do you know what projection is? the other anon said you replied to him with a false statement, now you're using quotation marks to quote him for something he literally didn't say? do you not see why I implied you fucking suck at formulating arguments yet?

Stop making up bullshit and you might actually convince someone of your point

>>105975120
If you are researching algorithms, yes, you are correct, you don't really need to do much programming, it's math, and you write papers and people implement your papers
If you are researching architecture, which is what game engines are, you ABSOLUTELY need a lot of real experience or else your research is absolutely worthless. And he hasn't published and "game engine research" either

>>105975117
>You're a smart guy, you know exactly what I'm saying, but you're being deliberately obtuse
A statement written by you, about me. It's made up.
>So you can either be honest or the discussion can end here
I'm fine with ending the discussion. I don't think one started.
You tried to convince me that Casey hasn't done any work, your posts were not convincing to me, and if we conclude that will be the conclusion I remain with.

>>105975126
I'm quoting Casey and that is almost exactly what his message is

>>105975136
I asked you why you thought what I said was wrong and you didn't answer
You must have no friends, you just want to argue about nothing

>>105975142
>almost exactly
lmao are you 12 lil bro

>>105975146
>I asked you why you thought what I said was wrong and you didn't answer
I don't believe I said you were wrong, I said your statement is false and as a result it doesn't convince me.
In fact, I said you're entitled to your opinion. But whether you think something is right or wrong doesn't really influence anyone besides yourself.

>>105975142
>I'm quoting
>almost exactly
You literally included the word "almost" because you know how quotations are supposed to work

see how this post says >>105975074 "never having released anything"
and this one says how it changed to "anything of note"
or how >>105974845 says "never even made anything"
but then it changes here >>105974866 "He has made small contributions to the software other people made"

It is the same thing, you know that "never made anything" is a more powerful statement, but since it is inaccurate, you keep immediately adding qualifiers like "of note" or "small contribution"
Yes it is a weaker argument, but you should still use it if that is how you feel, the constant flip flopping between misquotes and random qualifiers is not helping you convince anyone

>>105975166
So is it false or is it an opinion? Facts are true or false, but I posted an opinion
If you disagree why my opinion, you can say why
That's how a normal discussion works

>>105975184
I'll help you out and clarify:
Casey has never released a product, or a project. He has made small contributions to the projects of others

>>105975197
much better, that is the argument you should have made and STUCK TO from the start

>>105975204
Or you could just have an honest discussion instead of pulling out every bad faith argument tactic in the book

get a room you two

>>105975209
I can't imagine this guy has been in a room with anyone in his life

>>105975207
I don't even think you realize who I am in the reply chain if you believe that, because that is what I was doing at first

>>105975186
>So is it false or is it an opinion?
Your statement is false. In addition to that you have voiced your opinions on it, but that obviously doesn't change the matter of fact. Although you seem to think it matters in some regard, since you keep posting it to me, to which all I can say is that your subjective opinions, are not swaying me, primarily because fundamentally, they are standing on top of a false premise.
You obviously believe it to be true, or are at least pretending it to be the case, and you have provided me your reasoning for that.
You presented your perspective, and with that in my mind, nothing has changed.

>That's how a normal discussion works
We're not having a discussion at all, let alone a normal one. My best guess is that you want me to read your opinions and I'm confused as to why.

>>105975217
I don't care who you are, everything anyone has said to me has been some dishonest butthurt passive aggressive bullshit

>>105975209
>two
lel

>>105975220
We've had a long discussion but you've deliberately made it a pointless discussion about nothing because this is what you get off to
I saw you do it the other day aswell
Wierd dude you are

>>105975223
then why are you still here, if you think we are so dishonest and bad faith?

>>105952700 (OP)
oop was a major talking point in the 90's.
it already went out of fashion by like 2005, although it managed a lot of damage because it coincided with the boom.
if there is anything potentially intriguing about an anti-oop talk in 2025, it would be that it took place in 2025, in a supposedly serious setting, not just /g/eet tards arguing about stuff they heard about for the first time yesterday.

>>105952700 (OP)
I always thought this guy was an OOP hater because of /g/
He just hates inheritance which is one of the least controversial takes even for devs who write shit using OOP languages

>>105975229
I'm trying to see if I can get a real discussion going but no luck thusfar

>>105975232
No he also hates binding functions to data types which is the most brainlet take of all time

>>105975228
I post here to pass the time.
My conclusion here is that you're upset about something and are projecting a lot, I guess that's what you're upset about.
Anyway, message received, you're mad about how people write or something I guess.

>>105975226
its one guy arguing with himself?

>>105975243
No I just want to talk about the topic in the OP
I posted my opinion, you could post yours back, but instead you just say "I disagree, but I will not tell you why, haha, I win" and then post 30 pages of mental masturbation and pretend the OTHER party is somehow in the wrong
Pretty psychopathic if you ask me

>>105975247
kek its funnier if you read it that way

>>105975247
It's at least 3.

>>105975253
I posted my opinion in the initial post.
You replied with something confusing, my guess is that you were trying to convince me of something, but it doesn't make any sense.
I explained why it's not convincing, and you decided to keep repeating it.
To me, this is a clear disagreement with cause, but it's hard to even call it a disagreement because it's off topic.
You're trying to convince me Casey has not done past work, I know he's done past work. What am I supposed to reply with.

>>105975276
My opinion is Casey's past work is not noteworthy, obviously not that he hasn't done any because we both know he has
Drop the act and just talk like a normal human being for once

>>105975283
My judgment remains unchanged from before >>105974996
>You're entitled to your opinion, but stating it to me has not changed mine.

>>105975283
>obviously not that he hasn't done any
This Anon >>105975184 has you quoted different.
I bring up the projection allegations again.

>>105952700 (OP)
>Meanwhile Casey spent ten years building, and never finishing, a game engine and game in C that looked like it could have been done in ten months in RPGMaker.

too bad you were not there in person to own him with this remark

>>105975292
That's not an opinion, that's just a whole lot of useless words to say "you're wrong"

Casey has merit as a programmer. He's a smart guy, and he can program well. He just has no grounds to be talking about games or game engines (he hasn't made any) and his takes on architecture feel very much like they're coming from someone who can't see past his own way of doing things, he hasn't once made a cognisant point on why OOP is bad

>>105975037
That's not inheritance that's what's known as composition in OOP, which is an idea OOP retards created because even OOP retards know inheritance is retarded.

>>105975326
>My opinion is
>That's not an opinion
You've contradicted yourself in multiple posts so far and continue to do so.

>the rest
I have no idea why you're telling me this or how it relates to me. If you think he's a good programmer, you're allowed to think that. I'm not arguing for or against that, I'm not arguing period. You're just replying to me with arbitrary opinions of your own, and getting mad at something that isn't even clear to me. I guess you're mad that I don't agree with you.

>>105975359
That's not an opinion. You haven't posted a single opinion. All you post is "you're wrong" without sharing your own viewpoint. Are you just a psychopath who comes on here to shit on other people and not engage in productive discussion? Well I guess I don't even need to ask that, you've already demonstrated it

>>105975037
>inheritance is used all of the time in C code bases
Also press [x] to doubt. Code bases that do actual work aren't filled with dumb tricks like that. Clever hacks isn't anything anybody wants. People want readable code that's easy to parallelise. Nobody cares about your textbook examples except maybe that some retarded intern who wanted to show off his knowledge of pointers or something.

>>105975371
Case in point. You're just giving me your opinions on myself. Why? Who knows. What response are you expecting? Who knows.
What does your opinion on me have to do with anything, we don't even know each other. How is this supposed to convince me that Casey has never programmed before?

>>105975385
Normal people share their opinions with each other
I share mine, you share yours back
You should try it sometime

>>105975336
stay away from computers

>>105975394
I gave my opinion in the initial post, to which you replied with a statement that was both false and not relevant. You are continuing to do that same thing. Since you are initiating the side topic, with a claim, the onus is on you.
If you want to convince me that Casey has not worked before, I welcome you to keep trying, but I gave you the courtesy up front to tell you why your approach is not going to convince me. You tried anyway, and it has not worked. Now you're just writing things that seem arbitrary, like how conversations typically are, as if this is somehow supposed to add credence to your perspective, as if normal people sharing their opinions somehow changes my mind on the topic of Casey's work history. All I can do is say "that didn't change my mind either", and then you get mad because that boils down to "I disagree", sorry bro, if you want to convince me, convince me. When you don't, the only thing anyone can do is tell you that they disagree and why.

>>105975378
the c standard guarantees the first member of a struct has zero offset from the address of the struct. so, you can put another struct as the first member, and cast to the second type, and everything is fine. its completely legitimate and well-defined c and not a dumb trick.
as that anon illustrated, its inheritance. if he had done derived->base->member then its composition. thats also well defined c and not a dumb trick.

python under the hood uses this inheritance for their objects. i can't recall anywhere else i have seen it used.

>>105975429
I don't want to convince you Casey hasn't worked before, stop being a retard
The post you linked that you said contained your opinion contained no opinions at all
Try posting an opinion
I promise I won't make fun of you

>>105975444
>The post you linked that you said contained your opinion contained no opinions at all
I didn't link the post. It's the initial one in the chain, as said.

>I promise I won't make fun of you
I don't want you to do that. Be genuine, we're anonymous. Don't adapt your posting style like that. Or do, I don't control you. But honestly there's no reason to be afraid like that. If you want to make fun you're not going to get banned, shunned, etc.
It's chaff that will be disregarded, but if it's important for you to write it, then do so.

>>105975462
>Be genuine
You first

>>105975472
It's clear to me, that you refuse to believe that I am. Why, is unclear. I suppose, it's not what you're used to, or more likely, it's uncomfortable for you to accept what's being said. It's washed in every way, very clearly.

>>105975476
You haven't said anything, like I said, you won't post your opinion, you're just here to try and belittle people

>>105952700 (OP)
what the fuck is a "fat struct"

>>105975486
Opinion on what? Your remark was objective, not subjective.
You're trying to convince me of something about Casey, I'm telling you that what I'm reading isn't true.
There is literally and actually nothing more to write than that.
You seem to want to convince me despite this, and thus the onus is on you to write something, not me.
What am I supposed to write other than "still not convinced".
You're supposed to write something convincing if you intend to change my mind.
I think you're going to find that to be difficult, you're welcome to try, but obviously it's you who has to try.
I don't want to change my mind, so I don't have to do anything.

>>105975523
a struct that contains every possible thing you might need even if it's not being used
kind of like a less efficient union

>>105975529
I don't want to convince you of anything, what I posted was an opinion, I want you to post an opinion in return

>>105975536
Opinion on what?

>>105975530
sounds deranged

>>105975555
Are you really gonna pretend you don't know what the opinion I posted is after we spend like an hour talking about it? You can do better than that

>>105975556
It really is, Casey has never worked on a game yet he has this half-baked idea on how to structure a game engine and calls himself a "game engine researcher"

>>105952700 (OP)
based

>>105975564
What you're writing is convoluted from an external perspective. When you retain the context, it makes it difficult to understand what you're talking about. Especially when you continue to introduce multiple new secondary topics and then don't elaborate on which one you were referencing. Your initial reply was already unrelated to my own point in my post, and the ones that follow have not seem relevant either, and you keep changing things around. So realistically, you could be asking for my opinion on programming, Casey, conversation, discussion, people, or maybe even something I missed, hence why I asked.

>>105952786
you will never be a real programmer

>>105975605
You know the central point, you aren't stupid, don't pretend to be

>>105975614
I don't know your central point, I wouldn't be asking if I did.

>>105975618
Yes you do

kek you two are still going at it? all the way to page 10 huh?

>>105975435
>python under the hood uses this inheritance for their objects. i can't recall anywhere else i have seen it used.
Yeah because python implements OOP. And OOP is unnecessary and harmful.

>>105975398
Whatever pajeet, you're the reason everything is slow and crashes all the time and your code base is an unreadable spaghetti mess. But hey at least it guarantees your job right? Always bugs to fix. That's your real goal.

>>105975633
I think it's over now, he's run out of steam

>>105975627
I don't. And without the context, I don't know what you're asking me to respond to.
If you let me know I'll respond to it. As-is the context I have is that you want to hear my opinion, but it's not clear what the subject is.

>>105975656
My opinion is Casey's programming credentials are small, and definitely too small to be talking shit like he is

>>105975435
>the c standard guarantees the first member of a struct has zero offset from the address of the struct
A struct is a contiguous block of memory (plus padding, if any). I know why it works, but it's still dumb. It's like triple pointers. Who gives a fuck. My point is OOP creates a mess. You want to argue over how C can create a mess too? So what? It takes a lot of stupidity to create a mess in C, stupidity like implementing inheritance.

>>105975669
>It takes a lot of stupidity to create a mess in C
t. has never programmed in C in his life

>>105975669
can you show us on the doll where the compiler touched you?

>>105975666
> they call his credentials small but never that he's wrong
How about you stick to the arguments instead of ad hominem?

>>105975666
Okay. Obviously I disagree.

>>105975666

>>105975674
I touch C occasionally but mostly C++ in C style, just because I like having more libraries to work with. Not because I like it, but just to be productive.

>>105975683
I could go into why he's wrong but that'd take hours

>>105975685
So what's your opinion?

>>105975699
>I could go into why he's wrong but that'd take hours
You already spent hours here. Go make a youtube video about why he's wrong and I'll watch it to laugh at you.

>>105975698
please at least use references and smart pointers

>>105975703
waste of effort

>>105975699
>So what's your opinion?
On Casey? I don't really have one. Or did you mean on OOP?

>>105953914
sounds like terminal Cnile brainrot

>>105975717
No, I posted my opinion, now you post one in response, that's how this works, "I disagree" is not an opinion

>>105975706
>smart pointers
Please don't tell me you copy shared pointers everywhere. You know that's slow as fuck right?

I don't know why you guys are trying to protect OOP when everyone is moving away from it and even the creator of OOP says he regrets it. OOP sucking is a mainstream opinion. Are you just being contrarian?

>>105975722
You're giving me your opinion on Casey, but I have no idea what you want me to give my opinion on.
Casey specifically doesn't have anything to do with my post, you're the one who mentioned his work history to me. Why, I'm not sure.

>>105975752
You disagreed with my opinion
You post reasons why you disagree with it, rather than simply saying "I disagree"
You elaborate

>>105975698
>C++ in C style
>I like having more libraries to work with
you sure act tsun-tsun about seepeepee

>>105975765
>You disagreed with my opinion
Yes.
>You post reasons why you disagree with it, rather than simply saying "I disagree"
No.
I'd only do that if it was on-topic. Casey doesn't have anything more to do with the point made in my post beyond just being another programmer that the points relate to, which isn't just Casey. But even if it did, his work history has nothing to do with this either. That doesn't somehow change the objective facts of the compiled code or the machines it runs on.
>You elaborate
No.
Onus is on you. I made my post about my topic. You replied with an unrelated topic. I dismiss your remark as both false and off-topic. You change your stance on what you said and admit that he has in fact done programming, but you don't think it's worthy by your standards. This still has nothing to do with me and is all about you telling me about your opinions on Casey, which is not what I wrote about.

If you want my opinion on paradigms and practice, I already wrote it in the initial post.

>>105975815
Lmao
You haven't wrote a single opinion, and you still refuse to do so despite saying you would
Wonder why it's so difficult for you

>>105975824
>despite saying you would
I said I can't give you an opinion on something if you don't tell me what you're talking about.
Since you're not telling me, I have to guess that the thing you want my opinion on is Casey or OOP. To which I already said I don't have any strong opinions on him.
He's yet another programmer. I don't know what you're looking for or why this matter or has any relevance.

I'll cut this short. My assumption is that you're trying to get me to post off-topic opinions as some kind of ban bait.

>>105975837
Are you an AI or something
You just gravitate back to the same mental gymnastics over and over again, you refuse to have a conversation, everything has to be on your terms
I suggest keeping a diary instead of using the internet, that way there won't be other pesky humans trying to talk to you

>>105975850
>You just gravitate back to the same mental gymnastics over and over again
Yes, we're going in a cycle because you refuse to clarify. I ask what you want to hear and then you dance around it for a while then act surprised that I still don't know what you're talking about after you don't clarify.
I've told you multiple times, if you want a direct answer, ask a direct question.
E.g.
>What are your opinions on XYZ?
But just because you ask, doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer.
Like right now, you seem to be asking for my opinion on Casey (I'm not sure what aspect), but my opinions on Casey aren't related to my post (programming practice), nor are they related to your posts (something about his work history), since my opinions on him wouldn't change his work history.
If you ask me something related to my own post, I'm more likely to engage with that since that's on the topic of what I wrote.

>>105974749
t. filtered by OOP

The simplicity comes in the form of limiting scope so the level of abstraction you're currently looking at is not muddied by implementation details.

Consider the following:
FizzBuzz fb = new FizzBuzz();
fb.addRule(new IfDisvisibleBy(3), new AppendText("Fizz"));
fb.addRule(new IfDivisibleBy(5), new AppendText("Buzz"));
fb.setDefault(new InputNumber())
List<String> result = fb.getForRange(1, 100);

You can tell it's the most standard version of FizzBuzz. You can also easily see how to change the rules without having to inspect the implementation, eg. append "Pop" for numbers divisible by 7.
Yes, it results in more code overall, but you need to see less of it at a time, and the advantage grows as the codebase size does (ie. negligible for tiny example programs, virtually necessary for huge enterprise applications)

>>105975729
>when everyone is moving away from it
any example? when i look at code bases like linux, gnome, winapi, ... it's always an half assed implementation of oop (gobject everyone??).

>>105975871
I told you exactly what I wanted to hear, 2 posts later you pretend to forget like a goldfish
Here, I'll tell you again
Tell me why you think I'm wrong >>105975666

>>105975884
I don't think you're wrong. That's your opinion. As I said multiple times.
Hence why I can't say anything other than "I disagree". You are of that opinion, and I am not.
It's your opinion, why do you expect me to hold it? You brought it into the discussion in the first place, it has nothing to do with my post.

>>105975891
>I don't think you're wrong
>"I disagree"
Come on bro, you're slipping
Are stupid word games all you've got up your sleeve? You're not even very good at them, you contradict yourself so often

>>105975927
I don't think you're wrong for having the opinion that you do, but I still do not agree with your opinion despite you being right to hold one.
I never said you were wrong, you keep saying that.
Just because I disagree with you, does not make you wrong, nor would it make me right if I had an opposing opinion.
I keep saying that I don't agree with the opinion you were posting to me. Because I don't.

>>105975962
The pedantic feigning ignorance bit is getting old
If you refuse to share your opinion no matter what this conversation is boring

>>105975970
I'm not really sure what you mean.
You haven't asked me for my opinion on anything. You've only given me yours on Casey's work history.
I already gave my opinion on programming practice, timelines, etc.
I don't see what Casey has to do with any of that, you keep bringing him up, and seem to want to know what I think about him.
But I already expressed it. I don't have an opinion on Casey, and I don't see how he specifically relates to my post.
He's a programmer, and the things I wrote about are aspects related to him, but they're not unique to him. He literally doesn't matter in the context of my opinion, which you can still read in my initial post. His name is only in the quoted text, has nothing to do with my opinionated response specifically.

>>105975997
Asked for your opinion at least 10 times and you still won't give it

>>105976008
Once again you don't clarify.
Opinion on what? Write out what you want me to give my opinion on. The last time I asked you this, you replied with your own opinion on Casey. That tells me nothing about what you want to know about me, that just tells me what you think about someone that has nothing to do with me or what I wrote.

>>105976013
Clarified at least 3 times and you still pretend I haven't
Do you have any friends?

>>105976024
You're the one requesting the information, if you want it, you gotta conform.
I can't make it any simpler for you. Tell me explicitly, and specifically, what you want my opinion on.
If it's something to do with Casey, tell me what it is. His schedule, his voice, his clothing, his editor, whatever detail you're hyper fixated on.

>>105976034
Tell me why you disagree with this >>105975666

>>105976042
That is not the format I laid out.
You ask me like this
>what is your opinion on X's Y
If it's related to my post, I might answer it.
If it's not, I can/will explicitly refuse to answer it.

>>105976055
Ok, so you won't answer
Can you tell me if you have any friends?

>>105976058
>Ok, so you won't answer
It depends on the question, of which you have not provided one.
Instead you circled back to the same thing you already complained about yourself for illiciting pedantry.

>Can you tell me if you have any friends?
If you want to, but not on /g/.
Leave your contact info or make a thread on like /b/ or something and I can answer those questions there without either of us getting in trouble.

>>105976077
you won't get banned there's no moderation here

>>105976085
>jokes
harr harr

>>105976093
how much of a fucking newfag are you

>>105976094
not new enough to fall for such a stupid trick
I mentioned this exact tactic way earlier already you rube

>>105976103
If you do have friends, do you act like a human being around them or do you do this bit with them aswell?

>>105976110
How is this supposed to convince me that OOP is good practice.

>>105976119
Can't answer that either huh

>>105976124
I already told you so.
It has to be on-topic. I don't know why you want to know about my friends, nor do I understand why you want to know about Casey.
Can't you just make something up? I'm anonymous.

Both objects and ADT are data abstraction techniques that hide the data behind a set of operations. the fundamental difference between the two is that with an object, the implementation of the set of operations is bound to the object and is known as its interface. Having an interface instead of data enable all kind of interface abstraction techniques also known as design patterns. Have you learn design patterns, anon? almost all non oop source code i have seen are trying to mimic them awkwardly.

the differences between ADT and Objects: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~wcook/papers/OOPvsADT/CookOOPvsADT90.pdf

Learn actual PLT instead of listening to a charlatan, an impostor, a mediocre. The lisp general thread (λ) is always here to help you.

>>105976172
the only thing dumber than an anti-oop weenie, a lisp weenie

>>105974713
I am coding in js/ts for a very long time in small teams and I see no problems with it.

Do anglos really say "oop" like "oops" without the s? Hilarious

>>105976482
Please inform everyone of the correct Brahmin pronunciation, sar.