[QUOTE=orcywoo6;43250681]Why do we still have this bot?[/QUOTE]
Are you telling me "rolling your own" STL vector is not just absolutely exciting!!?? GOSH!!!!
Why do we have this bot, in the first place
To be fair, there are a fair amount of developers on facepunch who are interested in this stuff.
Me among them, if you're not interested then simply don't post to mark that you're not interested, [I]no-one[/I] cares that you don't care.
If you're not into computer science, that's fine, but understand there are quite a few people on facepunch that don't have their eyes glaze over the second someone starts talking about programming. I found this very interesting, especially since it directly relates to what I've been studying this semester.
The article is interresting, no doubt about it, but it seems to promote actually rolling your own vector class, or code in general, which is a completely moronic choice to make. There are VERY performant vector libraries out there in both C and C++ that can be, and probably have been, wrapped in several other languages.
Sure it's fun to reinvent the wheel when you're in a situation of education and academic, but outside those areas, it's just a dumb waste of time to do, and learning how existing libraries work is a way better method of becoming a good programmer.
There's also the benefit of not wasting time, and further polluting the open source "market" with clones of vector libraries.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;43250938]The article is interresting, no doubt about it, but it seems to promote actually rolling your own vector class, or code in general, which is a completely moronic choice to make. There are VERY performant vector libraries out there in both C and C++ that can be, and probably have been, wrapped in several other languages.
Sure it's fun to reinvent the wheel when you're in a situation of education and academic, but outside those areas, it's just a dumb waste of time to do, and learning how existing libraries work is a way better method of becoming a good programmer.
There's also the benefit of not wasting time, and further polluting the open source "market" with clones of vector libraries.[/QUOTE]
More importantly there's nary a corporate-backed reason to write your own implementations of storage classes for any reason listed in the article. It is a neat concept, but you'll likely never get to write your own implementation of vectors when you're in the real world working a dev job behind a desk.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;43250789]To be fair, there are a fair amount of developers on facepunch who are interested in this stuff.
Me among them, if you're not interested then simply don't post to mark that you're not interested, [I]no-one[/I] cares that you don't care.[/QUOTE]
Mine was a genuine question
[QUOTE=Protocol7;43251090]More importantly there's nary a corporate-backed reason to write your own implementations of storage classes for any reason listed in the article. It is a neat concept, but you'll likely never get to write your own implementation of vectors when you're in the real world working a dev job behind a desk.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how that directly relates to anything in the article, the article talks about people who for one reason or another are interested in writing their own, or learning about how to create your own libraries.
In the end someone is actually going to have to know how to create these things, not just reuse existing code.
Not everything is about [I]"corporate-backed"[/I] things either.
He does also go over the fact that maybe re-inventing the wheel isn't a good idea(in most cases), reading the whole article would be a good idea :v:
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;43251146]I'm not sure how that directly relates to anything in the article, the article talks about people who for one reason or another are interested in writing their own, or learning about how to create your own libraries.
In the end someone is actually going to have to know how to create these things, not just reuse existing code.
Not everything is about [I]"corporate-backed"[/I] things either.
He does also go over the fact that maybe re-inventing the wheel isn't a good idea(in most cases), reading the whole article would be a good idea :v:[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying most of the people who are interested in software development are probably going to be doing it for a corporation of some kind, and convincing your boss to let you write custom vector implementations instead of doing inane bug fixes is a tough sell.
As long as computer science education exists, someone's going to know how to write dynamic storage. Is this really worthwhile knowledge for most people, even developers? Not particularly. Most computer science education programs teach you how to implement dynamic storage. If you don't know how to set up an index operator, iterator or push back function in a dynamic array type, you didn't get a good education.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the information in the article. It's all valid information. But realistically it doesn't provide a lot of value - I'm pretty sure everyone with a basic comp sci education is familiar with the concepts presented in the article in some form, even if you haven't heard it by these names.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
