Before you continue your gracious dribbling about, here's some remarks for your consideration:


First, let us begin with a valuable quote from our friend Arild Fines:

quote:Arild Fines: Awww.... Excuse me while I dry my teary eyes.

That was in response to a defense I posted not so far above from this one.
Yes, you're excused like VXG said. And while you're at it, let me quote some guys in here and maybe by the time you're back you'll find something factual to read for a change:

Let's see.. Oh yeah, here's one. On this one Kylotan spoke of the writers of some short notes titled "Background on Futurist Programming"

quote:Kylotan: "Why does computer science reject self modifying programs?" If they don't know that, then how am I supposed to take them seriously?

How about because they actually know what they're talking about? And before I tell you why they do, read this other one:

quote:MadKeithV (to Silent Error): I'm glad that you critically reviewed the manifesto, it's the first step towards being a top-rank programmer. NEVER assume!

NEVER assume!. Ok I'll remember that. There's yet another quote regarding the already mentioned writers:

quote:Arild Fines: They're all a bunch of whiners.

and another one:

quote:Magmai Kai Holmlor: If they code anything like they write, it's no wonder they need to figure out a better way to do it.

and one more:

quote:Andrew Nguyen: These people are the same people who don't want people to use if's. My 2 0.001 cents

That's pennies alright. But there's even more:

quote:Magmai Kai Holmlor: It looked like several pages of auto-generated bs.

Sure looks like it to you. Wow, talk about ranting. Those were just some of the things said here. Also, somewhere somebody said or implied that those people are a bunch of frustrated poets, artists or whatever, but I can't seem to find that post anywhere..


Finally you all got Silent Error to give up and say this:

quote:Silent Error: It's an interesting idea, but lacking direction, focus, and most importantly, examples. A lot of what they saw I came to realize, I don't see.

No examples. Ok, and enough of that quoting business.


Now, none of you dumb@sses (no offense) even cared to not "ASSUME" (read the quote above) and at least find out who wrote the manifesto itself before you went on saying it's b.s., POS and all that (yes you said that -go read above).

Well, I've done some short research of my own, and here's what I found about the top p.o.s whose work you rant (didn't know about him until now):

His name is Paul Haeberli and in regard to all his bullsh*tting without anything to show for it, here's some of his work:

1:
2:
3:

And I'm sure that's not all he has to show.
All of those links were tested individually by me and found to be active (as of feb 2002).


...
*sigh*

Let me finish this post with a small part of an email a friend just sent to me after reading this thread:

quote:A friend: "..there's an important detail which certain morons... failed to realize. The manifesto happens to be hosted on an apparently not-so-well-known website - www.sgi.com And what does sgi stand for? Silicon Graphics Inc. - the company which made game development possible in the first place. If they didn't create OpenGL, then Microsoft wouldn't have rushed to create DirectX, and this means that the whole gamedev community wouldn't even exist now. In other words they're indirectly bashing the people who made this whole game development thing possible. That's not very clever. Surely that manifesto isn't perfect, primarily because of the somewhat cryptic language in which it's written. But the fact that SGI stands behind it says it all."

XCHG



ps: In regard to those of you who need examples badly, of who I am and what I do I won't go into because of lab policy and respect for my friends and colleagues. Instead, I'll just mention 2600 -my friend- who has also been my teacher and has taught many others part of what he knows (yes, he's been a college professor too). If he were here, he'd probably mention as one of his examples any defender machine still standing, which I invite you to go check out if you can find one (they were made long ago by these guys), and although I could also mention quite some titles of my own I won't even bother to. I'll just say that for already stated reasons you will not find our technology on home computers (not as long as guys like you and m$ drags them around anyway).

And if you haven't already done so, go check the following closed thread, where somewhere in between you'll find out how this topic got started. (in page 5 of it actually)


My task here is almost complete.


Edited by - XCHG on February 10, 2002 9:43:13 PM

"because they actually know what they''re talking about?"
So what if it was said by some people who had some success? I see the opposite said by LOTS more people who''ve had LOTS more success overall. Plenty of great people in history have been wrong.

Self-modifying code is a bad idea for MANY reasons. There are some places where it might be useful, sure, like any tool. But pushing it forward like something everyone should be using is pretty stupid. You see, some of us value reliability and the ability to prove methods correct. This is not possible when the algorithm itself mutates. Oh, of course, I forgot, any scientific method is bad isn''t it? Well, originality is all well and good, but computers are essentially deterministic and many of us like to prove our programs correct.

And so what if it''s on the SGI site? He''s a researcher for them. The nature of research is that you investigate and propose new things. It certainly doesn''t mean that your employer agrees with or backs every single thing you say.

quote:Silicon Graphics Inc. - the company which made game development possible in the first place. If they didn''t create OpenGL, then Microsoft wouldn''t have rushed to create DirectX, and this means that the whole gamedev community wouldn''t even exist now.

Moron. Wrong on at least 2 counts:

1) Game development, and hence the community, was around long before DirectX and will be around long after its departure. Did that person honestly think that everyone on GameDev.net only started programming when DirectX came about?

2) DirectX was not made in response to OpenGL - DirectX was made in response to the fact that game programmers were sticking to DOS, hampering the chances of getting Win95 onto every PC.

If you''re going to cite ''friends'' who ''support'' you, at least pick those who know what they''re talking about.

You know, you''re posting a hell of a lot, but saying very little. Such is the way of someone who likes to think they know better than everyone else, but actually lacks any way of proving it.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

How is "futurist" programming any different from traditional programming?

Filtering out the long-winded ranting, I got the following:
- Avoid structured programming; it''s slow
- Avoid OO design; it''s slow andbuggy
- Avoid modular and extensible design; it''s just an excuse to leave out features
- Program in ASM
- Write self-modifying code
- Verify correctness
- Experiment

You should most certainly experiment. But when you have a deadline, you go with what''s proven.

You should certainly verify correctness. Nobody likes a buggy program.

You should in the vast majority of cases not write self-modifying code. It''s hard enough to verify the correctness of a greedy algorithm, let alone one that modifies its own code. Writing self-modifying code is the surest way to create bugs, not to exclude them.

As for ASM: There''s a time and place for it. That time and place is writing small sections of code. Remember the 90/10 rule. Also, you''re less likely to write bugs in a high level language. There''s simply less to keep track of. And, contrary to popular h4x0r kiddie opinion, most modern compilers do do a pretty good job.

Now on to his problem with modular and extensible design. Extensible design is incredibly useful. Not only does it allow you to seperate a project into manageable pieces (read: prevent yourself from being overwhelmed and introducing bugs); it allows end-users additional opportunities to customize the product. Were it not for modular and extensible design, there would have never been such thing as a Quake MOD. The author argues that extensible design is merely an excuse to leave out features. This simply defies common sense. If its easier to extend your program - that is, include additional features, then it follows that, given the same amount of time, more features will be added!

The author also has a problem with OO design. I will admit that OO fanatics often overstate their case. However, the fact is not changed that OO design is indeed a reliable way to develop software, and, in many cases, it''s the most logical one. I''ll give the example of a game - after all, this is Gamedev - in which you have monsters. Doesn''t it make sense to have a monster object, with accompanying AI functions?

Finally, the author advocates that we all shun structured programming. This is completely nonsensible. Structured code is neat code. Neat code is simple code. Simple code is fast code. Its also easy to maintain. Structured programming prevents bugs and increases speed. Why on earth wouldn''t you want to use it? The basic building blocks of even the most simplistic structured programming languages is the function. No structured programming, no functions.

I wouldn''t want to have to read that code.

I''ll also point out one more of the author''s comments. He said "indent from right to left." I think this sums up his entire case: "Do things differently for the sake of doing them differently regardless of such insignificant things as practicality. Ignore all common-sense wisdom; It''s wrong."

Finally, there''s the title of this programming philosophy: "Futurism." It says it is inspired by modern technology. Lets look at how modern technology is created. Individual parts are developed, and are assembled into modular components which are recursively combined into larger and larger parts which are, in the end, assembled into a final product. This is exactly how structured programming - especially OO design - get things done.

As for the web site being hosted by SGI - This is one man; his opinions are not representative of SGI''s programming practices. Please don''t try to tell me that OpenGL was not done in a structured manner.