deltaonefour

11 ms·

31.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Great. Then you're not the elitist group I'm referring too. I'm basically talking about the difference between MCU style blockbusters and br. The pacing is a huge delta.
32.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
If you were mature, you wouldn't insult people and call them immature lol. Maturity isn't even a legit concept. People are all very different. The word immaturity more or less is used here as venom. Direct insults. So why do you w
33.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
See this here with more French when I obviously called you on it is called trolling. Nobody look up that French or ask about it... it's a trap so he can lord it over you with an authoritative expose and explanation of his expansive kno
34.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
It's not a fight, it's a discussion. The magic stuff actually has (or had) sort of a background explanation based in "science" so overall I would say it's more sci-fi. In many cases I would even argue genres like sc
35.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Yeah. The pacing on that is even worse.
36.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
No it's not pretentious at all. What I find pretentious is when you love the slower stuff but hate all the popular stuff and dismiss pacing as even a relevant factor. Many many people have this attitude and they actually dismiss MCU st
37.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Lol we both know the intention here was snobbery. Just reference the painting in English instead of communicating with terminology everyone has to Google.
38.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Bro. I'm older then you. Lol. Your very narrow minded to assume that just because someone has a different opinion then you it's from a person younger then you. In fact talking to someone in such a patronizing tone isnt itself exac
39.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>He's referring to a painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images Most people don't know about this painting nor do most people know French... I'm sure you and him are aware of th
40.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>That's not an argument, that's a conclusion without any supporting arguments. Dismissed as nonsense as easily as posited without effort. This is HN not nature. It's not a scientific debtate, just a general conversation so
41.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
> A quality that makes a film commercially successful is not automatically a quality which makes a film great art. Agreed? Why are you telling me something I completely agree with? >Popular is popular. Art is art. The problem here is
42.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Remember, it's "elitist" because the people who think this way are in the minority. Your and my preferences are actually the norm, just not in this thread. Most people will get bored and that is completely normal. Although I
43.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
No it's not. You're just getting too technical. Star wars is science fiction. Because in the same vein you could call LOTR science fiction too because the fantasy elements are just natural properties of the created world. The &quo
44.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Starship troopers was a masterpiece. Don't mock it.
45.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
But if you replaced the setting with a mundane one the movie would be a generic film noir. It only works because of the combination of the setting and the story.
46.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
There are three things that are important to the movie. - Pacing so you don't get bored. - Thematic depth - Atmosphere A lot of pretentious people like to ignore pacing as if their brains are made up of pure IQ and anyth
47.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Blade runner isn't even that good, thematically. But I get why it's considered the best. It's because in most sci-fi movies a lot of effort is spent on the setting and thus the story while many times is good, often lacks the
48.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Polymorphism and encapsulation are not features exclusive to OOP. Isomorphisms exist everywhere. You could say nothing is OOP because it compiles into assembly anyway where pretty much all those concepts don't even exist. You can even
49.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
> Code is itself data, so a full decoupling is logically impossible. Nah, code exists in a different universe then "data" and it's decoupled by default. Runtime data is completely unaware of "code." that is unles
50.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
If you have a hard time thinking this way then you really need to try other paradigms in coding because OOP is not the only way and it is getting less and less popular. For example C, is not OOP. Linus Torvalds hates OOP, so linux is in wri
51.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Most things in programming aren't formally defined. It is especially hard given the isomorphisms everywhere. At best what I've done here is eliminate some of the vagueness surrounding the definition, which is really all that'
52.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
One way to define it is to look at the thing that's unique to OOP that isn't used in any other paradigm. In OOP data and method are unionized into primitives that form the basic building blocks of your program. This is unique to O
53.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>I think we should focus on semantics here rather on syntax only. We are focusing on semantics. But your definition of OOP is shaped by enterprise style syntax and languages. I'm using very general notions of OOP and general psuedo
54.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>I don't follow, is DependencyInterface a proper interface (as in OOP)? Interface is not part of OOP. C++ doesn't have it. It's still OOP. Interfaces are a language implmentation detail with a vague definition. In general
55.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>You're doing it wrong: you pass LoggerSocket as a function argument. This is because I'm too lazy to write out a full class definition for DI. The intent of my example still stands. I'm writing a lot, and a lot of example
56.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Bro, you're the one being uncivil. Don't make me laugh. I may be arrogant. But being arrogant isn't uncivil. When you insult people and try to "trigger" them that's what's uncivil. Also that guy I responde
57.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>Not quite the same thing. If we suddenly want a file instead of a socket, we need to replace all instances of "socket" in all 1000 files with "file", while LogManager stays LogManager no matter what the internal impl
58.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Where? I need you to spell out the line for me where I used the same symbol twice, because I don't see it. The post is well past the time limit for editing; so whatever it is you're talking about it's there forever. I also li
59.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
People interpreted my initial reply as arrogance. While it is a bit arrogant, there's a reason for the condescension. Because your flippant reply, implied you didn't even read the code. Any programmer can OBVIOUSLY read the code.
60.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>If this is written in the library, that is 2^n combinations of file output functions This is a feature you want. When you code you want to build things in a style that's modular like legos such that you have the ABILITY to build 2^

More ›