We need a good flamewar in here.
Thus! Object-oriented programming: Does it suck or what?
But that's only one way of looking at it. The state is the IP and instructions/data. But what does that state represent? You could do the exact same thing with functional - freeze the machine, copy over all the algorithms, and restart it. A computer may be all state, but so is a rock. It's what that state represents that matters.
I understand where you're coming from, and to a certain extent I agree. When confronted by most real-world problems I have no idea where I'd start with a functional language. I just disagree that functional is useless. Witness the Lisp Machines (now dead lol).
There are certain other benefits to the elimination of explicit state: it makes automatic parallelization and concurrency considerably easier. This will probably become increasingly more important in the future.
In theory, that's only one of several ways to look at it, sure, but in practice, you've got bits in RAM. You can pretend it's something else, and implement everything you need for this, but that won't change the fact your computer is one big state machine.
Parallelization is important, though, and a pain in the ass when dealing with state. You're definitely right about that one, and I'm inclined to agree we'll be seeing more parallelization in the future. Physics is gonna start kicking our asses pretty soon when it comes to hardware design.
It'll be entertaining when the standard answer is no longer: "get a faster CPU."
Therein lies another pet peeve of mine...
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.
>>37
The world needs a lot more people like you.
>>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?"
Make that "faster and smaller"... not necessarily cheaper.
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.
> 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
Yes, most of that discussion was left as implied.
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
>>44
Plz 2 be enlightening the unwashed masses, oh great and mysterious master. Where are we wrong?
>>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.
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
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.)
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?
Anything that involves "blog". God I hate that word.
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
I'm DQN. Ignore the second part of >>48. --;