4 ms·

I know a two-and-a-half hour video is a hard sell for most people, but I found this talk to be absolutely fascinating. It's not yet another tired “let's all shi

I know a two-and-a-half hour video is a hard sell for most people, but I found this talk to be absolutely fascinating. It's not yet another tired “let's all shit on OOP just for the sake of it”-type thing—instead, it's basically nothing but solid historical information (presented with evidence!) as to how “OOP”, as we now know it, came to be. The specific context in which these various decisions were made is something that nobody ever cares to teach, such that it's basically long-since forgotten today—yet here it is, in an easily-digestible format!

Jtsummers 1y ago
Amusingly, an hour into the video he complains about information being hidden behind hours of video. It would be a better paper, but apparently he hasn't written or put one out there. Probably a 20-30 minute read instead of 2.5 hours (or 1.25 since I'm running it at double speed).
- adamrezich 1y ago
  To be fair, though, the video has an uncommonly high (by modern standards!) information density/signal-to-noise ratio—there's minimal filler, and it's very straightforward and to-the-point with regards to its subject matter!
  - igouy 1y ago
    > minimal filler 13:45 -- "He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird."
- nickitolas 1y ago
  I don't know if it matters to you, but the "video" is just a recording of a conference talk. It wasn't made with the sole intention of making a "video". I agree a text format version of the same information would be useful.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    same difference? it just translates to "information being hidden behind hours of conference talks"? isn't that arguably even worse? imagine the talk was not recorded, and the only way to learn this is to catch the speaker at a conference and listen to him talk?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

Jtsummers 1y ago

Amusingly, an hour into the video he complains about information being hidden behind hours of video. It would be a better paper, but apparently he hasn't written or put one out there. Probably a 20-30 minute read instead of 2.5 hours (or 1.25 since I'm running it at double speed).

adamrezich 1y ago
To be fair, though, the video has an uncommonly high (by modern standards!) information density/signal-to-noise ratio—there's minimal filler, and it's very straightforward and to-the-point with regards to its subject matter!
- igouy 1y ago
  > minimal filler 13:45 -- "He's like, inheritance was like really powerful, but people just didn't know how to use it. Novices and experts apparently both couldn't use it, right. It was just uh you know, it's really good, but no one can figure out how to use it, I guess. Uh so that's a little bit weird."
nickitolas 1y ago
I don't know if it matters to you, but the "video" is just a recording of a conference talk. It wasn't made with the sole intention of making a "video". I agree a text format version of the same information would be useful.
- em-bee 1y ago
  same difference? it just translates to "information being hidden behind hours of conference talks"? isn't that arguably even worse? imagine the talk was not recorded, and the only way to learn this is to catch the speaker at a conference and listen to him talk?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]