I had whisper make a transcript and skimmed some but I ended up watching the talk at ~1.5x speed in the end anyway. https://pastebin.com/EngTq9ZA If you want the timestamps kept in I can paste that too.
A few lines of Javascript in the console can copy that to the clipboard for you. Maybe someone's packaged that up already. (It's on my todo list to look around...)
OOPs = "object-oriented programming", BUT it's a more restrained and thoughtful complaint than just "objects suck" or "inheritance sucks". He cabins it pretty clearly at 11:00 minutes in: "compile-time hierarchy of encapsulation that matches the domain model was a mistake"
To unpack that a little, he looks to the writings of the early developers of object oriented programming and identifies the ways this assumption became established. People like Bjarne Stroustrup (developer of C++) took on and promulgated the view that the inheritance hierarchy of classes in an object oriented system can be or should be a literal instantiation of the types of objects from the domain model (e.g. different types of shapes in a drawing program).
This is a mistake is because it puts the broad-scale modularization boundaries of a system in the wrong places and makes the system brittle and inflexible. A better approach is one where large scale system boundaries fall along computational capability lines, as exemplified by modern Entity Component Systems. Class hierarchies that rigidly encode domain categorizations don't make for flexible systems.
Some of the earliest writers on object encapsulation, e.g. Tony Hoare, Doug Ross, understood this, but later language creators and promoters missed some of the subtleties of their writings and left us with a poor version of object-oriented programming as the accepted default.
Is there a script or transcript anywhere, for those of us who can read 10x faster than it is possible to understand speech?
I had whisper make a transcript and skimmed some but I ended up watching the talk at ~1.5x speed in the end anyway. https://pastebin.com/EngTq9ZA If you want the timestamps kept in I can paste that too.
About every video on YouTube has a transcript, usually a button at the bottom of the description.
No help. It's video speed.
I can read at several thousand words a minute. So I need the whole transcript in one shot.
Then I can read it in 10 or 15 minutes or so, and decide if it's worth watching a 2 hour plus video. The answer is almost always "no".
Use yt-dlp to download the transcript.
Not the closed caption button. In the bottom of the description there is "show transcript" which gives a scrollable transcript.
A few lines of Javascript in the console can copy that to the clipboard for you. Maybe someone's packaged that up already. (It's on my todo list to look around...)
The presentation was recently discussed at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44596554 [video] (37 comments)
This current posted link is an article by Casey Muratori with supplementary material on topics to explore further.
- Early History of Smalltalk
- History of C++
- Development of the Simula Languages
- Origins of the APT Language for Automatically Programmed Tools
And here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44603205
Any way to find out what the 35 year mistake was without being "engaged" for hours on that video?
OOPs = "object-oriented programming", BUT it's a more restrained and thoughtful complaint than just "objects suck" or "inheritance sucks". He cabins it pretty clearly at 11:00 minutes in: "compile-time hierarchy of encapsulation that matches the domain model was a mistake"
To unpack that a little, he looks to the writings of the early developers of object oriented programming and identifies the ways this assumption became established. People like Bjarne Stroustrup (developer of C++) took on and promulgated the view that the inheritance hierarchy of classes in an object oriented system can be or should be a literal instantiation of the types of objects from the domain model (e.g. different types of shapes in a drawing program).
This is a mistake is because it puts the broad-scale modularization boundaries of a system in the wrong places and makes the system brittle and inflexible. A better approach is one where large scale system boundaries fall along computational capability lines, as exemplified by modern Entity Component Systems. Class hierarchies that rigidly encode domain categorizations don't make for flexible systems.
Some of the earliest writers on object encapsulation, e.g. Tony Hoare, Doug Ross, understood this, but later language creators and promoters missed some of the subtleties of their writings and left us with a poor version of object-oriented programming as the accepted default.
I don't know, but given the page, I think it is OOPS.
Object oriented programming.
It's more specific than that. See sibling comment
Fri fir