3 ms·
> Except that ignores the small detail that his company is selling a game engine with heavy use of GC, via Blueprints and C++ classes marked as UOBJECT. Yes I'
by jstimpfle 7y ago
> Except that ignores the small detail that his company is selling a game engine with heavy use of GC, via Blueprints and C++ classes marked as UOBJECT.
Yes I've heard that there are some high-level things and _some_ amount of GC in there. And I'd wager that this is about where your knowledge about UE ends as well. If that is so, better don't make bold statements like "heavy use of GC".
And Mr. Sweeny is obviously not only accomplished, but extremely sharp. But being sharp doesn't protect anybody from buying into stupid ideologies without any actual real world validation.
Just as it doesn't protect HN trolls from collecting little factual nuggets from the internet and then spreading misinterpretations (i.e. falsehoods) hundreds of times. For example, the kind of "Data oriented design" that has been all the rage recently is so definitely no concession to OOP.
Regarding Mr. Sweeney, the German Wikipedia page for example states that he didn't have any significant programming involvement anymore since Unreal Engine 3 (which was released in ~2006; Unreal Engine 2 was released in ~2002). Regarding programming, all I've read from him on twitter was just language related stuff, frequently mentioning theoretical blah-blah, such as covariance, monads, higher-kinded, blah-blah, and oh it is sooo practically relevant that C function pointer syntax is unusable if you want to return pointers to functions that return pointers to functions that return pointers to functions...
> The sense I get from those tweets are the usual anti-GC discussions
I suggest trying to make sense of his actual statements in the first place. Any offering from your side is very welcome! Again, I'll collect all the arrogance that I have in me, to criticize this man, who is obviously much sharper than myself, of blathering in this tweet a load of BS that hasn't undergone real world validation.
Again, I might be missing the valid interpretation of what he's saying, but to me all evidence points to him needing a little refresher regarding the real world, in practice.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 7y agoAny C++ developer worth their salt is perfectly able to understand that blah-blah.
- jstimpfle 7y agoYou know, I once learned category theory, at least to the point where I could explain from the ground up what a monad is, as well. And the most important thing I've learned in the process is that these theoretical buzzwords don't have any relevance to programming whatsoever. This theory stuff is not a means to an end. It's a means unto itself. > My answer to this is: the ultimate type system is constructive logic (following the proofs-as-programs direction), the ultimate typechecker is a theorem prover, and theorem proving technology improves over time. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1231412413087571968 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/123141241308757196... People who say such things have simply drunken the kool-aid, big time. When it's about practice instead of theory, I prefer to listen to people who have actually made stuff in the last decade.