4 ms·
The article doesn't argue that ECS is a good fit for everything. It argues that it is a better fit than OOP for some of the things OOP was intended for. And tha
by yakubin 5y ago
The article doesn't argue that ECS is a good fit for everything. It argues that it is a better fit than OOP for some of the things OOP was intended for. And that it's a broader theme, where OOP is usually not the right tool for the job, even when it was originally intended to solve that particular job.
- Rochus 5y agoThe article is primarily trying to suggest that "OOP" has "died" so many times that it should no longer be used. As if OOP was an ideology to be committed to or not.
- girvo 5y agoThat is not what I took from the article at all.
- meheleventyone 5y agoIt does a poor job of this in light of component based OOP approaches.
- ehnto 5y agoI'm confused. ECS is a type of OOP, is it not? An entity is an object in the same way a model is an object.
- tsimionescu 5y agoI think one of the most core ideas of OOP is encapsulation, and in this way ECS is radically opposed to OOP.
- ratww 5y agoNot really. An "Entity" in most modern ECS implementations is normally implemented as an integer, which is used as a handle to which multiple components refer to. A "Component" is normally implemented as a struct, and a "System" as a standalone function. No encapsulation here. Of course you would have to implement all of the above using classes and objects if your language doesn't have support for structs or standalone functions, but that's just an implementation detail. The concept itself is not a subset of OOP, and breaks many "rules" of OOP.