the game IS about ALL the things you can do in the game.
This argument that there are so many degrees of freedom in GTA that you can do anything you want to is ludicrous.
I mean, I can see the degrees of freedom, great! A simulation.
It's a simulation of violence, killing, destruction and mayhem, period. It IS about that.
You think the developers just woke up to find out "wow, you can kill the prostitute and take her money, who knew!" They made a world, and the art, etc, to do exactly that. Don't give me that emergent feature crap!
>> you don't want all the tool and part logic in the Worker...
>Uh... We don't?
yeah, we don't. For example, one time I was working on an online-role playing game. If we added a new item to the world, we just want to download the logic and art for that new item. We want to download a hammer and a nail... not new player code. The player of course has something akin to player::UseObject(Article, Article), but the logic to execute the interaction is in the hammer and/or nail classes where it belongs. All the player knows is that it's useable, and that useing something potentially includes a target (what it's used on). The logic in the player, or worker, is minimal.
>> We don't want to simulate the real world
>On the contrary, that is precisely what OOP is trying to do.
no. OOP is fundamentally the encapsulation of structures of data with the functions that work on that data. How you model things is up to you.
I know a lot of people get into "noun and verb" nonsense (total nonsense!) and into simulating real things, as if a Window is an abstraction of a Window. However, that's just their mistake.
Programs are machines made of logic. Objects are logical entities, they should abstract logical relationships, not real things, they should not directly model their metaphor! Objects model various kinds of coupling (from rigid to loose), various types of structuring data, etc.
Of course this is just my humble opinion (which happens to be right in this case).:)
PS: btw, I LOVE the STL approach... and I don't think there is anything that violates OOP, although it uses some paradigms outside the OOP paradigm, that IS C++ OOP... multiparadigmed OOP. Of course I know this is an OOP defined a little differently than an "OOP purists" would. But the purists can get back to me when they agree among themselves on some defintions, any definition of just about anything. Purists are notorious for never quite deciding the nature of the Pure... oh yeah, because there is no purity, just engineering.
As for Roman's and other strong nations... you mean like all the indigenous tribal peoples of europe?
Sorry, cowardice, brutality, intelligence and enlightenment are not terms to apply to any culture, but only to individuals and/or movements within that culturel.
For a christian to say, "look how brutal their religion is!" is a joke to me. Outside the whole mess, not as a christian, jew, muslim, budhist nor zoroastrian, organized religion, IN GENERAL looks to be a large source of brutality.
>ever, I think there should be an easier method to quickly represent contructs, logic and flow of data that can when needed be easily drilled down to accomidate whatever level of detail or granularity I require.
C++ is best as achieving this via it's multiparadigmed approach. imnsho, ymmv.
Overall I think you make some very good points in your post.
actually, I'm not for the "cat > a.out" method of programming or any other Klingon techniques, I want it easier too... but it's like this: looking for a fountain of youth didn't really give anyone long life, mundane improvements in health care did. A good class system in C++ can abate one's fear of pointer's... or no... we need a paradigm shift (wooowhooooo) -- scary wailing sound
We need to focus on real improvements, the real world, and lose a few of the holy grail searches... eh?
No good language or paradigm is going to limit logic so that it cannot be complex, or by extension over complex.
To wish otherwise is to hope for a fire that cannot burn. You can protect yourself from burns, but having a type of fire that does not burn is not the way, you give up it's main benefit.
So with logical systems, to prohibit spaghetti is also to prohibit the use of logic, as such, itself.
Hey... guys... stop hoping for magic and just STOP SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT... it's not the gun's fault.
... I don't mind dupes. I don't mind beowulf honey nut clusters in my hot grits. I don't mind GTA apologia.
BUT This Isn't About a Tablet PC.
Not. About.
Come on! I don't even mind if you don't have time to read stories you reject. But stories you accept? And it's clearly not a tablet in the first paragraph.
This is overly sloppy, not the endearing nerdy we're all freinds here kind of sloppy. More like, we're still riding the dot bomb and we don't know how lucky we are so who cares whatever kind of sloppy.
Why does there have to be a conspiracy behind everything?
because it's just a word for "a plan" from the point of view of the person not privy to the plan.
Masonic Secret
funny you bring that up. It proves not only a point about conspiracy being common enough such as to be practically a mundane subject, but also the fact that such conspiracies can grow to have tremendous influence.
every newly-freed worker has all the tools he needs to go out and create an enterprise for him/herself
you'd have to have some form of proof for a wild claim like this. It's not very likely that a newly freed worker has all the tools for whatever enterprise he has been freed from, and I can think of quite a few that require significant resources to begin.
You win the game by becoming as rich as you can. You typically do this by starting a new Amazon or Best Buy that sells crap at a lower price than other crap dealers to other people playing the game.
not really.
it's not too "typical" to start an Amazon and Best Buy. I started working when I was 13 and never stopped till now, including now.
working for a living is the typical thing. Investing your abilities in a saleable skill and making a long term commitment is the more typical way. Money doesn't win. Contentment wins, in the typical case... enough money for weekend at the lake or whatever.
I'm guessing you'd like some form of socialism
well, America has plenty of socialism, and there are aspects that are fine with me (e.g. socialized police force, military) and there are some that are not (e.g. education), and there are areas that should be socialized that are not. It's a matter of design, the international and internal conditions at hand. Using a socialized industry to make an interstate highway system is really sensible. Fundamental infrastructure.
So socialist? Who isn't? Conservatives! LOL!
But I am more political philosopher than partisan.
There are things we say that make a difference. We can do, but we can also analyse, critique and speculate. Money is bad AND good. Real conspiracies have been discovered over and over. I would love to have the kind of empire Ted Turner has, not just for the money. Imagine the conspiracies you could pull off?
Money still just is, and having it doesn't mean you're out to get everyone, getting it doesn't mean you've "gotten" people.
thing is, the poster was talking about a logical progression of decisions made to make moneym. None of these decisions are made to screw anybody, that was just the non-factor in the decision making process. So the fact is that he outlined a way money could be made and the failures of companies or national economies would be of little concern to that goal. The money appears bled out of the economy, the punishment all lay on the victim. Not a conspiracy because money is evil, unless Forest Gump was right, "evil is as evil does". Naw.
Money has the bad rap because it enables a few scams, it's not good nor evil. Money is nothing but an arbitrary set of rules for an economy, like writing simple rules for a simple game, creating money establishes a few simple rules. In any set of rules there are people that game the system, it's not moral or immoral at that point, to be sure, it IS a game. But when the game is a matter of life and death, morallity does enter into it.
Money gets a bad rap morally because following the logic of maximizing one's possession of it can lead to quite unjust sounding conclusions. And that, too, is simply a part of life. People don't like to put up with that.
actually, america is founded on the idea you have to put up with the liberals, you may not send them off to france.
spending time fantasizing to the contrary is counter productive, you have to take the ideas of liberal into account, because they are in this republic too, and if you don't like it, then it's you that doesn't like the american system, and you have to move to Singapore.
You seem to be saying "won't happen because it can't be done perfectly". I am trying to say "will happen, even if not perfectly. an iterative process."
not really.
I'm more saying (with respect to the computers with "common sense" issue), that if you have computers with "common sense" they will not work as you expect these star trek computers to work.
I hold the best computer languages for actually programming the computer will still be analytic, logical languages. The purpose is to allow the Human User to use their common sense to drive the computer... giving a computer "common sense" won't accomplish that goal.
first, since I've been disagreeing with you, let me say that the ideas you are bringing up are very interesting... you have a decent position, I just happen to disagree.
About the above: common sense is an illusion you will never impliment or find in a human. Conext is ambiguous, both from a quantum perspective (we're talking about quantum computing here, among other things) and also from the point of view of being interpretive. Is my context "father of family in house", "animal on planet earth", "logician working on problem"... why it depends on the context of the problem!
I think what you are asking is for every program to be written in advance.
For the computer to know the "obvious" from the not obvious, the point from the beside the point.
But people are not even up to that task! A computer cannot be up to that because it requires arbitrary decisions that do have ramifications. Ambiguity is in the world down to the smallest folds, you will not have a magic system that changes that, although you might likely arrange better and more efficient abstractions, as another reply pointed out.
I consider this part of the "computer technology is like no other technological achievement ever" school of reasoning.
For a program to let you talk to it the way you describe will require someone that thinks like the computer. That is not a program you are "telling" the computer, that is a configuration you are describing to the computer. That configuration will, of necessity, be translated into an actual method that matches the computer's internal design. It's not programming, just as HTML markup is not programming. The programmer that arranges for configuration to be translated into what the computer really understands, will be a better programmer the more he knows the architecture he's using.
In fact, the best languages will be a hybrid between man and machine and will lean heavily toward a world view that matches the world view of the computer. If it's a genetic computer, a neural network, or a traditional computer very much matters. It's possible one language will satisfy all those in the optimum way, but it's certainly not an assumption that can be made.
And this is not a bad thing. The general user may need what we could call "Star Trek" features, but the programmer is not so limited, and it will always be appropriate for a software engineer to think like a computer, to understand a computer, to perhaps be more logical and consistent than "regular" people, just as it's appropriate for a civil engineer to understand the properties of materials, the language of blue-prints, etc. etc., things I don't think about while I drive along the overpass.
Further, I think people need to be far more logical, rational, and reasonable than they currently are if we are to survive the next ten centuries in style. People have at least as far to come toward computers, for this reason, as computers have to come to them.
Please don't assume I feel this way because I disdain the user or because I think hard interfaces are better (or macho). I am a good GUI designer, I judge my software based on how users judge it, and have worked a significant part of my carreer in commercial software where "babying" the user is a necessity and is well rewarded.
If you think computers have to bend more to your way of thinking, you are a user, that's all, not a software engineer. The best way to program is think like the machine. We of course abstract this as much as possible, but assuming we can abstract away the differences between neural nets and genetic computers is overly bold, I think, and possibly just the least beneficial dream.
Slashdot Mirror
the game IS about ALL the things you can do in the game.
This argument that there are so many degrees of freedom in GTA that you can do anything you want to is ludicrous.
I mean, I can see the degrees of freedom, great! A simulation.
It's a simulation of violence, killing, destruction and mayhem, period. It IS about that.
You think the developers just woke up to find out "wow, you can kill the prostitute and take her money, who knew!" They made a world, and the art, etc, to do exactly that. Don't give me that emergent feature crap!
>> you don't want all the tool and part logic in the Worker...
:)
>Uh... We don't?
yeah, we don't. For example, one time I was working on an online-role playing game. If we added a new item to the world, we just want to download the logic and art for that new item. We want to download a hammer and a nail... not new player code. The player of course has something akin to player::UseObject(Article, Article), but the logic to execute the interaction is in the hammer and/or nail classes where it belongs. All the player knows is that it's useable, and that useing something potentially includes a target (what it's used on). The logic in the player, or worker, is minimal.
>> We don't want to simulate the real world
>On the contrary, that is precisely what OOP is trying to do.
no. OOP is fundamentally the encapsulation of structures of data with the functions that work on that data. How you model things is up to you.
I know a lot of people get into "noun and verb" nonsense (total nonsense!) and into simulating real things, as if a Window is an abstraction of a Window. However, that's just their mistake.
Programs are machines made of logic. Objects are logical entities, they should abstract logical relationships, not real things, they should not directly model their metaphor! Objects model various kinds of coupling (from rigid to loose), various types of structuring data, etc.
Of course this is just my humble opinion (which happens to be right in this case).
PS: btw, I LOVE the STL approach... and I don't think there is anything that violates OOP, although it uses some paradigms outside the OOP paradigm, that IS C++ OOP... multiparadigmed OOP. Of course I know this is an OOP defined a little differently than an "OOP purists" would. But the purists can get back to me when they agree among themselves on some defintions, any definition of just about anything. Purists are notorious for never quite deciding the nature of the Pure... oh yeah, because there is no purity, just engineering.
and inside Worker...
void Worker::UseTool(Hammer ham, Nail nail)
{
ham.pound(nail);
}
assuming you have an assortment of tools and nails, surely you don't want all the tool and part logic in the Worker itself... whats the point of that?
We don't want to simulate the real world, we are abstracting the logic needed to implement an algorithm.
I'm from the no brutality is good brutality.
As for Roman's and other strong nations... you mean like all the indigenous tribal peoples of europe?
Sorry, cowardice, brutality, intelligence and enlightenment are not terms to apply to any culture, but only to individuals and/or movements within that culturel.
For a christian to say, "look how brutal their religion is!" is a joke to me. Outside the whole mess, not as a christian, jew, muslim, budhist nor zoroastrian, organized religion, IN GENERAL looks to be a large source of brutality.
>ever, I think there should be an easier method to quickly represent contructs, logic and flow of data that can when needed be easily drilled down to accomidate whatever level of detail or granularity I require.
C++ is best as achieving this via it's multiparadigmed approach. imnsho, ymmv.
Overall I think you make some very good points in your post.
thanks for the support, now "fek off, cup"
actually, I'm not for the "cat > a.out" method of programming or any other Klingon techniques, I want it easier too... but it's like this: looking for a fountain of youth didn't really give anyone long life, mundane improvements in health care did. A good class system in C++ can abate one's fear of pointer's... or no... we need a paradigm shift (wooowhooooo) -- scary wailing sound
We need to focus on real improvements, the real world, and lose a few of the holy grail searches... eh?
oops, should have previewed... should have been...
hammer.pound( static_cast< Nail >(screw)) ;
hammer.pound( static_cast(screw));
them are the evil programmers trying to make OOP look bad.
a major abuse of OOP comes from the common confusion that objects are abstracting real things or acting as metaphors.
The more general case is that an Object ought to be abstracting a logical construct, to be a logical machine mapping to analytic concepts.
Not all programs are simulations where encapsulation should match something "real".
... we programmers are logicians.
No good language or paradigm is going to limit logic so that it cannot be complex, or by extension over complex.
To wish otherwise is to hope for a fire that cannot burn. You can protect yourself from burns, but having a type of fire that does not burn is not the way, you give up it's main benefit.
So with logical systems, to prohibit spaghetti is also to prohibit the use of logic, as such, itself.
Hey... guys... stop hoping for magic and just STOP SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT... it's not the gun's fault.
... I don't mind dupes. I don't mind beowulf honey nut clusters in my hot grits. I don't mind GTA apologia.
BUT This Isn't About a Tablet PC.
Not. About.
Come on! I don't even mind if you don't have time to read stories you reject. But stories you accept? And it's clearly not a tablet in the first paragraph.
This is overly sloppy, not the endearing nerdy we're all freinds here kind of sloppy. More like, we're still riding the dot bomb and we don't know how lucky we are so who cares whatever kind of sloppy.
At least that's how it looks from here.
make a online game compelling for achievers, socializers, killers and explorers.
yes, whatever you do, don't forget to make the game attractive for killers.
hey, all your fellow GTA players say the game is not about that, get with the program!
really... so which Greek did they steal algebra and arithmatic from? btw, where did they steal the number we stole from them from?
the "obvious" fact is no culture has a monopoly on brutality or enlightenment.
Why does there have to be a conspiracy behind everything?
because it's just a word for "a plan" from the point of view of the person not privy to the plan.
Masonic Secret
funny you bring that up. It proves not only a point about conspiracy being common enough such as to be practically a mundane subject, but also the fact that such conspiracies can grow to have tremendous influence.
every newly-freed worker has all the tools he needs to go out and create an enterprise for him/herself
you'd have to have some form of proof for a wild claim like this. It's not very likely that a newly freed worker has all the tools for whatever enterprise he has been freed from, and I can think of quite a few that require significant resources to begin.
You win the game by becoming as rich as you can. You typically do this by starting a new Amazon or Best Buy that sells crap at a lower price than other crap dealers to other people playing the game.
not really.
it's not too "typical" to start an Amazon and Best Buy. I started working when I was 13 and never stopped till now, including now.
working for a living is the typical thing. Investing your abilities in a saleable skill and making a long term commitment is the more typical way. Money doesn't win. Contentment wins, in the typical case... enough money for weekend at the lake or whatever.
I'm guessing you'd like some form of socialism
well, America has plenty of socialism, and there are aspects that are fine with me (e.g. socialized police force, military) and there are some that are not (e.g. education), and there are areas that should be socialized that are not. It's a matter of design, the international and internal conditions at hand. Using a socialized industry to make an interstate highway system is really sensible. Fundamental infrastructure.
So socialist? Who isn't? Conservatives! LOL!
But I am more political philosopher than partisan.
There are things we say that make a difference. We can do, but we can also analyse, critique and speculate. Money is bad AND good. Real conspiracies have been discovered over and over. I would love to have the kind of empire Ted Turner has, not just for the money. Imagine the conspiracies you could pull off?
Money still just is, and having it doesn't mean you're out to get everyone, getting it doesn't mean you've "gotten" people.
thing is, the poster was talking about a logical progression of decisions made to make moneym. None of these decisions are made to screw anybody, that was just the non-factor in the decision making process. So the fact is that he outlined a way money could be made and the failures of companies or national economies would be of little concern to that goal. The money appears bled out of the economy, the punishment all lay on the victim. Not a conspiracy because money is evil, unless Forest Gump was right, "evil is as evil does". Naw.
Money has the bad rap because it enables a few scams, it's not good nor evil. Money is nothing but an arbitrary set of rules for an economy, like writing simple rules for a simple game, creating money establishes a few simple rules. In any set of rules there are people that game the system, it's not moral or immoral at that point, to be sure, it IS a game. But when the game is a matter of life and death, morallity does enter into it.
Money gets a bad rap morally because following the logic of maximizing one's possession of it can lead to quite unjust sounding conclusions. And that, too, is simply a part of life. People don't like to put up with that.
Turns out the system is working.
time to market and feature counting.
actually, america is founded on the idea you have to put up with the liberals, you may not send them off to france.
spending time fantasizing to the contrary is counter productive, you have to take the ideas of liberal into account, because they are in this republic too, and if you don't like it, then it's you that doesn't like the american system, and you have to move to Singapore.
do you think no conspiracy theory can be true?
do you think there have been no conspiracies?
What do you call the plans of a billionaire, anyway?
The English language has changed tremendously in the last several hundred years.
Make that five hundred and you can hardly recognize it.
It continues to change around many driving causes. It is ingesting many technical and logical terms from computer science, for example.
You seem to be saying "won't happen because it can't be done perfectly". I am trying to say "will happen, even if not perfectly. an iterative process."
not really.
I'm more saying (with respect to the computers with "common sense" issue), that if you have computers with "common sense" they will not work as you expect these star trek computers to work.
I hold the best computer languages for actually programming the computer will still be analytic, logical languages. The purpose is to allow the Human User to use their common sense to drive the computer... giving a computer "common sense" won't accomplish that goal.
I think 100 years is enough time to find out that English is a poor language... even for communication among humans.
>Lack of common sense. Lack of context.
first, since I've been disagreeing with you, let me say that the ideas you are bringing up are very interesting... you have a decent position, I just happen to disagree.
About the above: common sense is an illusion you will never impliment or find in a human. Conext is ambiguous, both from a quantum perspective (we're talking about quantum computing here, among other things) and also from the point of view of being interpretive. Is my context "father of family in house", "animal on planet earth", "logician working on problem"... why it depends on the context of the problem!
I think what you are asking is for every program to be written in advance.
For the computer to know the "obvious" from the not obvious, the point from the beside the point.
But people are not even up to that task! A computer cannot be up to that because it requires arbitrary decisions that do have ramifications. Ambiguity is in the world down to the smallest folds, you will not have a magic system that changes that, although you might likely arrange better and more efficient abstractions, as another reply pointed out.
I consider this part of the "computer technology is like no other technological achievement ever" school of reasoning.
For a program to let you talk to it the way you describe will require someone that thinks like the computer. That is not a program you are "telling" the computer, that is a configuration you are describing to the computer. That configuration will, of necessity, be translated into an actual method that matches the computer's internal design. It's not programming, just as HTML markup is not programming. The programmer that arranges for configuration to be translated into what the computer really understands, will be a better programmer the more he knows the architecture he's using.
In fact, the best languages will be a hybrid between man and machine and will lean heavily toward a world view that matches the world view of the computer. If it's a genetic computer, a neural network, or a traditional computer very much matters. It's possible one language will satisfy all those in the optimum way, but it's certainly not an assumption that can be made.
And this is not a bad thing. The general user may need what we could call "Star Trek" features, but the programmer is not so limited, and it will always be appropriate for a software engineer to think like a computer, to understand a computer, to perhaps be more logical and consistent than "regular" people, just as it's appropriate for a civil engineer to understand the properties of materials, the language of blue-prints, etc. etc., things I don't think about while I drive along the overpass.
Further, I think people need to be far more logical, rational, and reasonable than they currently are if we are to survive the next ten centuries in style. People have at least as far to come toward computers, for this reason, as computers have to come to them.
Please don't assume I feel this way because I disdain the user or because I think hard interfaces are better (or macho). I am a good GUI designer, I judge my software based on how users judge it, and have worked a significant part of my carreer in commercial software where "babying" the user is a necessity and is well rewarded.
If you think computers have to bend more to your way of thinking, you are a user, that's all, not a software engineer. The best way to program is think like the machine. We of course abstract this as much as possible, but assuming we can abstract away the differences between neural nets and genetic computers is overly bold, I think, and possibly just the least beneficial dream.