Object.-oriented programming (54)

1 Name: !WAHa.06x36 05/01/10(Mon)16:07 ID:E5bmKDvc

We need a good flamewar in here.

Thus! Object-oriented programming: Does it suck or what?

37 Name: Mr VacBob!JqK7T7zan. 2005-03-14 17:44 ID:B3K9rGZO

You don't always have to. I've redone a few of the more important really slow bits in mplayer because I can't afford a faster laptop.

38 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-03-14 21:15 ID:HXCVfVTL

>>37
The world needs a lot more people like you.

39 Name: Albright!LC/IWhc3yc 2005-03-16 17:38 ID:1wnJZZGc

>>36: Personally, I don't think that day will come in my lifetime... We've approached physical limitations in chip design before, but every time somebody figures out how to go ahead and make them faster and cheaper anyway. That being said, even if it does happen, who's to say it won't simply change to "get more CPUs?"

40 Name: Albright!LC/IWhc3yc 2005-03-16 17:38 ID:1wnJZZGc

Make that "faster and smaller"... not necessarily cheaper.

41 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-03-16 20:58 ID:LNsQqHln

>>39

That was the point - it is already changing into "get more CPUs", but this will be an incredible challenge for software design, because parallel code is much harder to write. Which, in turn, is why any kind of programming that makes parallelization easier will become more interesting. Which is what >>34-36 was about.

42 Name: Albright!LC/IWhc3yc 2005-03-17 02:21 ID:Heaven

> Which is what >>34-36 was about.

Oh, was it? Sorry, I couldn't really decipher all of the geeky blather about "state" this and "bits" that. :P

43 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-03-17 16:36 ID:ptdkkcQT

>>42

Yes, most of that discussion was left as implied.

44 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-05 19:14 ID:Heaven

lol:

Subject: Wow Just Wow
http://4-ch.net/code/kareha.pl... People totally ignorant of OO or Functional Programming arguing over OO programming using functional examples to support OO.

WOW

45 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-05 23:51 ID:Heaven

>>44
Plz 2 be enlightening the unwashed masses, oh great and mysterious master. Where are we wrong?

46 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-06 00:39 ID:Heaven

>>45
Don't ask him, ask the guy who runs the "church burning tumblelog"!

It seems clear to me that anyone who runs a 'tumblelog' with such quality posts as "Doesn't this look like a huge ballsack?" obviously knows more about object oriented programming than you guys do. You'd better just accept that you're wrong about this one.

47 Name: 44 2005-10-06 05:11 ID:Heaven

Yes, I didn't write that one.

48 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-06 06:58 ID:Heaven

Not another stupid meme word in the making:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tumblelog
Results 1 - 10 of about 890 for tumblelog.

Anyway, are you planning on pointing out our mistakes, or are your posts thus far representative of all you're capable of? This board needs a good flamewar, and I'm all for a bit of education.

yawn

49 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-10-06 11:49 ID:yKTzGd5r

Wait, so we're now coining a new word for what "weblog" initially meant?

(Jorn Barger coined the term "weblog" for his site, http://robotwisdom.com/, which appears to be exactly what this idiotic word "tumblelog" refers to.)

50 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-06 13:56 ID:Heaven

I am thinking about starting a thread on /net/ for stupid terms of the internet. So far I have "blogosphere", "tumblelog" and "podcasting". Any more?

51 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-06 14:53 ID:Heaven

Anything that involves "blog". God I hate that word.

52 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-06 16:00 ID:Heaven

Maddox already did it, at least partially
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish
A whole slew of words that mean than same thing as other words that already existed because people are too dumb to know that they already existed because of their ivory tower existance

53 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-10-06 17:01 ID:Heaven

I'm DQN. Ignore the second part of >>48. --;

54 Name: #!usr/bin/anon 2005-10-09 22:17 ID:jJ1D+9zK

>>50 AJAX-ing the open source cathedral model with ruby on rails and XML.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.