None of you will understand the difference between practice and theory. You can go to college and study all the incredible feats of modular design, get monolithic classes hammered out of your head, but in the end, MY setup is easier to work with, MY setup is just as efficient as yours, and MY setup is pushing out the most functionality per line of code. Is there ever a time I will have to encrypt something that won't be or can't be casted into a string? Nope. Will I ever have to send a packet that isn't a string? Nope. How handling file i/o, will I ever need to load and interface with a format that isn't text-based (in a server application)? Nope!
This is why I implemented my class like this, and if you can't at the least appreciate this, you're incredibly ignorant. I understand where you guys are coming from, but to someone like me, the ultimate goal is to push out code and enhance the end user experience. That's it. My code is easier to follow and definitely easier to use. I'm not that experienced in game development or programming, but I feel that, in the real world, nobody cares except for the kid that's straight out of college and still has perfection burned into his brain. Everybody else cares about what's easy to use and gets the same job done.
[QUOTE=Downsider;31307145]None of you will understand the difference between practice and theory. You can go to college and study all the incredible feats of modular design, get monolithic classes hammered out of your head, but in the end, MY setup is easier to work with, MY setup is just as efficient as yours, and MY setup is pushing out the most functionality per line of code. Is there ever a time I will have to encrypt something that won't be or can't be casted into a string? Nope. Will I ever have to send a packet that isn't a string? Nope. How handling file i/o, will I ever need to load and interface with a format that isn't text-based (in a server application)? Nope!
This is why I implemented my class like this, and if you can't at the least appreciate this, you're incredibly ignorant. I understand where you guys are coming from, but to someone like me, the ultimate goal is to push out code and enhance the end user experience. That's it. My code is easier to follow and definitely easier to use. I'm not that experienced in game development or programming, but I feel that, in the real world, nobody cares except for the kid that's straight out of college and still has perfection burned into his brain. Everybody else cares about what's easy to use and gets the same job done.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're getting it. They are not saying "use this just because they said so in school" they are saying "someone smarter than both of us figured out that this method is better than yours"
Your code is definitely not easier to follow. Image if you made a library that people will use some day. Do you really think their thought process will go like "Hmm, I need to encrypt this string, surely there's a member method that will allow me to do that"? Nope.
Maybe you should calm down and try to get rid of some of those "me"s, "my"s and "I"s in your sentences.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;31308935]I don't think you're getting it. They are not saying "use this just because they said so in school" they are saying "someone smarter than both of us figured out that this method is better than yours"
Your code is definitely not easier to follow. Image if you made a library that people will use some day. Do you really think their thought process will go like "Hmm, I need to encrypt this string, surely there's a member method that will allow me to do that"? Nope.[/quote]
It's geared toward a specific application, it's not a general-purpose library, and that's not what I'm trying to set up or use in any way, shape, or form. I'm trying to make something easy to use and functional. I thought I cleared that up?
[quote]Maybe you should calm down and try to get rid of some of those "me"s, "my"s and "I"s in your sentences.[/QUOTE]
Apparently I'm alone in the idea of functionality over modularity, so it's fitting.
[QUOTE=Downsider;31307145]MY ego is bigger than yours.[/QUOTE]
ftfy
[QUOTE=q3k;31309363]ftfy[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm certainly making an ass of myself more than anything, but I wish you'd just appreciate that I don't want to adhere to standards I don't believe in, you know, see the other side of the development philosophy? I like the idea that getting stuff done in any way possible, so long as there's no significant performance impact. Is that so wrong, Facepunch? I'm not trying to impose my ideas on you, I'm just sharing my own philosophy. I used to think that everything had to be perfect, and that anyone who didn't do it the "right" way was an idiot, too. Then I realized I don't have infinite time, and found that changing my philosophy remedied that.. I don't mind pumping out code that doesn't take advantage of OOP as well as it should as long as the end user experience is the same, because it's easier on me.
[quote]Well, I'm certainly making an ass of myself more than anything, but I wish you'd just appreciate that I don't want to adhere to standards I don't believe in, you know, see the other side of the development philosophy?[/quote]
We do appreciate it. We do see the other side. But your arrogant and condescending comments are what we're pissed at.
[quote]None of you will understand the difference between practice and theory.[/quote]
[quote]This is why I implemented my class like this, and if you can't at the least appreciate this, you're incredibly ignorant.[/quote]
Anyway, back to your pity letter.
[quote]I like the idea that getting stuff done in any way possible, so long as there's no significant performance impact.[/quote]
So do we, but some of us (I included) consider programming an art of creating delicate and beautiful programs. But you just pissed on our art by implying that your code (any way possible) is more important in the world (theoretical vs practice) than our art. To be honest, that's kind of an upsetting thing to do.
[quote]Is that so wrong, Facepunch?[/quote]
No, it's not. It's an awesome way to write programs. But coming in and acting like your way of programming is the only way to program in the real world is wrong.
[quote]I'm not trying to impose my ideas on you, I'm just sharing my own philosophy.[/quote]
No, you're not trying to impose your ideas on us. But as I said, you're pissing on our ideas.
[quote]I used to think that everything had to be perfect, and that anyone who didn't do it the "right" way was an idiot, too. Then I realized I don't have infinite time, and found that changing my philosophy remedied that..[/quote]
Oh for god's sake.. Stop being so condescending and acting like you're more experienced than us and as if our philosophy is just a phase.
[quote]I don't mind pumping out code that doesn't take advantage of OOP as well as it should as long as the end user experience is the same, because it's easier on me. [/quote]
Okay.
Anyway, to sum things up. You've pissed all over our philosophy, and not even with nice piss. Your piss reeks of arrogance and a condescending attitude.
If you can't act like a mature person, you have no place here.
You're doing the same thing to me.. and the fact that I practically just apologized for being a douche and you wrote the most condescending of all posts in the thread, the pick-apart-a-post post.. Just let it go. I said I respected your ideas of design philosophy, too, but when there's a bunch of assholes throwing random, sometimes unrelated, insults out, it's not easy to keep your cool.
Nobody insulted you. You threw the first punch.
[QUOTE=Jookia;31311085]Nobody insulted you. You threw the first punch.[/QUOTE]
Just because I started this doesn't mean nobody insulted me.
If you came and punched me in the face and I punched you back, would you then play victim?
[QUOTE=Downsider;31307145]None of you will understand the difference between practice and theory. You can go to college and study all the incredible feats of modular design, get monolithic classes hammered out of your head, but in the end, MY setup is easier to work with, MY setup is just as efficient as yours, and MY setup is pushing out the most functionality per line of code. Is there ever a time I will have to encrypt something that won't be or can't be casted into a string? Nope. Will I ever have to send a packet that isn't a string? Nope. How handling file i/o, will I ever need to load and interface with a format that isn't text-based (in a server application)? Nope!
This is why I implemented my class like this, and if you can't at the least appreciate this, you're incredibly ignorant. I understand where you guys are coming from, but to someone like me, the ultimate goal is to push out code and enhance the end user experience. That's it. My code is easier to follow and definitely easier to use. I'm not that experienced in game development or programming, but I feel that, in the real world, nobody cares except for the kid that's straight out of college and still has perfection burned into his brain. Everybody else cares about what's easy to use and gets the same job done.[/QUOTE]
I actually thought you were joking.
[QUOTE=Jookia;31311085]Nobody insulted you. You threw the first punch.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Downsider;31311371]Just because I started this doesn't mean nobody insulted me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jookia;31311436]If you came and punched me in the face and I punched you back, would you then play victim?[/QUOTE]
Programming is serious business.
[code]#define true false[/code]
Should make for some interesting programs!
[QUOTE=Azur;31333922][code]#define true false[/code]
Should make for some interesting programs![/QUOTE]
[code]#define ! !![/code]
Erm
[code]
#define private public
[/code]
also:
[URL="http://sudharsh.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/yet-another-brainfuck-interpreter/"]Brainfuck interpreter[/URL] for easy event & ui scripting
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
