4 ms·

> It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. Terms in computing are so overloaded that these days I try[0] and never cor

> It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. Terms in computing are so overloaded that these days I try[0] and never correct anyone on how they use a term. Instead I ask them to define it, and debate off of that definition. So instead of downvoting this guy for using different terminology - we can ask him what he means and just have a discussion. [0] alright I don't always succeed but it's an ideal to strive for

ukj 5y ago
This is a commendable approach. Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language). Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties. It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. The dogmatism demonstrated today was in your comments, ukj. Your inability to understand that your non-standard use of terms makes it impossible for others to communicate with you in any effective way made this a remarkable farce of a conversation or debate.
  - ukj 5y ago
    There is no such thing as a "standard" model of computation, and therefore no such thing as "standard definition" or use of computation. There is only the model you (and your tribe) believe is "standard" implicitly. Do you actually understand that? I kinda thought navigating the inherent ambiguity of all language (programming or natural) is a fundamental skill for software engineers. Communication is indeed impossible when you think you possess the "right" meaning of words. Oh... by the way, somebody capable of understanding/listening has just informed me that what I am actually talking about is closer to multiple dispatch than dynamic dispatch. Multiple dispatch is, in fact, more dynamic than "dynamic dispatch". Hilarity ensues.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ukj 5y ago
    There's also no such thing as "standard use" of terms. Your dogma has a name. Linguistic prescriptivism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription ) If there was a "standard use" languages wouldn't evolve and we wouldn't have so many of them. 8 billion people on Earth would be speaking The Standard Language! Perhaps the thing you don't understand (over and above how to communicate) is this comic? https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
Jtsummers 5y ago
Dynamic dispatch is not terribly overloaded. It's dispatching based on run-time information instead of just compile-time information. The problem in this discussion is that ukj has come to the belief (but communicated it poorly) that dynamic dispatch is somehow incompatible with static typing. And for some reason this also matters. Static typing does not preclude dynamic dispatch, and despite being pointed to several mainstream languages that have both features, ukj decided to ignore reality or the common understanding of the phrase "dynamic dispatch" and produced this grotesque example of trying to communicate with an individual who is, apparently, just a troll. Feeding the troll, ukj, is probably the dumbest thing I did today, but I'll blame that on the insomnia reducing my ability to detect trolls.
- ukj 5y ago
  >Dynamic dispatch is not terribly overloaded. It's dispatching based on run-time information instead of just compile-time information. According to the above definition C++ does not have dynamic dispatch! The vtable in C++ is generated at compile time and used at runtime. It's immutable at runtime. That means it is NOT dynamic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Comparison_with_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Compariso... "Virtual method tables also only work if dispatching is constrained to a known set of methods, so they can be placed in a simple array built at compile time." Like, I don't care how you use words, but you (and everyone) are using "dynamic" to speak about a statically-behaving system!
- ukj 5y ago
  You've muddled your own thinking with the weasel word "incompatible". Living is not incompatible with dying if you do each at different times and you are doing type-checking and dynamic dispatch at different times. The "common understanding" doesn't even differentiate between the types of dynamic dispatch. My perspective is higher-fidelity than yours, yet you are trying to "correct my understanding". It's not troll-feeding - it's hubris.

ukj 5y ago

This is a commendable approach. Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language). Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties. It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.

Jtsummers 5y ago
> It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. The dogmatism demonstrated today was in your comments, ukj. Your inability to understand that your non-standard use of terms makes it impossible for others to communicate with you in any effective way made this a remarkable farce of a conversation or debate.
- ukj 5y ago
  There is no such thing as a "standard" model of computation, and therefore no such thing as "standard definition" or use of computation. There is only the model you (and your tribe) believe is "standard" implicitly. Do you actually understand that? I kinda thought navigating the inherent ambiguity of all language (programming or natural) is a fundamental skill for software engineers. Communication is indeed impossible when you think you possess the "right" meaning of words. Oh... by the way, somebody capable of understanding/listening has just informed me that what I am actually talking about is closer to multiple dispatch than dynamic dispatch. Multiple dispatch is, in fact, more dynamic than "dynamic dispatch". Hilarity ensues.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ukj 5y ago
  There's also no such thing as "standard use" of terms. Your dogma has a name. Linguistic prescriptivism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription ) If there was a "standard use" languages wouldn't evolve and we wouldn't have so many of them. 8 billion people on Earth would be speaking The Standard Language! Perhaps the thing you don't understand (over and above how to communicate) is this comic? https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

Jtsummers 5y ago

Dynamic dispatch is not terribly overloaded. It's dispatching based on run-time information instead of just compile-time information. The problem in this discussion is that ukj has come to the belief (but communicated it poorly) that dynamic dispatch is somehow incompatible with static typing. And for some reason this also matters. Static typing does not preclude dynamic dispatch, and despite being pointed to several mainstream languages that have both features, ukj decided to ignore reality or the common understanding of the phrase "dynamic dispatch" and produced this grotesque example of trying to communicate with an individual who is, apparently, just a troll. Feeding the troll, ukj, is probably the dumbest thing I did today, but I'll blame that on the insomnia reducing my ability to detect trolls.

ukj 5y ago
>Dynamic dispatch is not terribly overloaded. It's dispatching based on run-time information instead of just compile-time information. According to the above definition C++ does not have dynamic dispatch! The vtable in C++ is generated at compile time and used at runtime. It's immutable at runtime. That means it is NOT dynamic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Comparison_with_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Compariso... "Virtual method tables also only work if dispatching is constrained to a known set of methods, so they can be placed in a simple array built at compile time." Like, I don't care how you use words, but you (and everyone) are using "dynamic" to speak about a statically-behaving system!
ukj 5y ago
You've muddled your own thinking with the weasel word "incompatible". Living is not incompatible with dying if you do each at different times and you are doing type-checking and dynamic dispatch at different times. The "common understanding" doesn't even differentiate between the types of dynamic dispatch. My perspective is higher-fidelity than yours, yet you are trying to "correct my understanding". It's not troll-feeding - it's hubris.