rlt3

The problem is that most programmers today aren't apart of either of those groups but apart of a third, totally separate group: programmers who pick and prod and then glue lines of code together.

>Is the need to bench then add an actor the only way you "allow" transfer of children between parent actors?

Currently, yes. Since this is sort of an entity component system and that actors can always create more children anytime they want, I suppose I just always assumed that actors could be "spun-up" with any sort of functionality and then deleted when not used.

Benching/Joining an actor is more for handling errors at runtime or for debugging ("If I temporarily remove this actor will it solve my issue?").

>I'm guessing the author is using "traditional" in the sense of what is traditionally taught

This is correct and it's my mistake for not making this more clear.

>The approach to the missing "message" functionality would be either to create a class

Yeah, I explicitly covered this. I don't feel like piling some 'controller' object on top of other objects necessarily accomplishes what I'm after.

But it does work and I've used the pattern plenty.

I should have a tutorial out very soon. The documentation is not yet complete but does have a few examples.

Also, of course it's object-oriented. The article is titled a "healthy" hatred for a reason.

>I'm guessing your comments are based on seeing a lot of poor practices masquerading as OOP which affects what you think OOP actually is

I personally feel that the current OOP model eventually devolves into the bullet points you listed given enough complexity.

One reason why I think this occurs is that there is no concept of a 'message' in OOP, only methods or functions of a class. There's explicit coupling even when calling a method with no arguments because you know the method is valid for that object.

Contrast this with the example of the 'listener' in the room. A speaker broadcasts his message but the independent agents ultimately decide what to do with that message.

The OOP approach calls "object->listen" on each listener. My approach simply broadcasts the message and lets the objects determine how to handle it themselves.

His point was that sometimes business owners can get used to applying a template. It's a bookstore so it gets the bookstore template -- 4000 books and a coffee shop, right? Instead of applying this template, an owner with a pulse on the business can see what their customers are doing/buying/wanting and can change accordingly rather than apply a template.

"non-phallic" implies all other first-person shooters are phallic. The word phallic implies many things.

Yeah, the phrase is from someone else, but it certainly wasn't included by accident.

Certainly not out-of-context.

Is this about appreciating female game pioneers or about bashing the fact that games are a male dominated hobby?

"phallic first-person shooter."

Am I a great programmer if I can write a really good "Hello World" in C?

Was Michael Jordon considered good because he beat a lot of high school kids?

Living in a society is about being able to reason with others.

Instead of trying to skirt issues and involve authorities in hopes to solve problems, it usually is better to confront the person themselves.

Your example went straight to an extreme. It doesn't have to be theft, or murder, or an assault that makes you "upset" at them. Maybe you feel wronged because they said something in public that you wanted private.

Authorities have their place, but many problems can be solved by not involving them. I'd also say that many more problems are caused because people didn't want to confront one another.

I'd say it probably has something to do with Google penalizing them.

A lot of people get new albums from the holidays and would want to look up lyrics.

Are you trying to say that it's not real and that it's a publicity stunt for cyber monday?

Or are you saying that unmanned flying machines which deliver products in under 30 minutes is not noteworthy enough for people to take seriously?

I'm pretty sure there was more to it than rounded corners.

I always figured that you wouldn't explode, but simply 'disassemble'. It was my understanding that the human body is held together under of the pressure of the atmosphere. So, if you remove the atmosphere, what is holding the body together?

There's absolutely no reason to believe Dread Pirate Roberts isn't the third party you mention.

I used to use bookmarks when they were simple to use.

I'd find a page and click `add bookmark' and then I would go back to it later. Somehow bookmarks regressed even though they were fine as they were. If I bookmark a page now, it just goes somewhere.

If I click the `Bookmarks' menu, I don't see any bookmarks. I don't understand what happened, all I see are a bunch of folders of stuff I never added and don't care about.

Anyway, since bookmarks are worthless now, I just have like 50 tabs open at all times now. I periodically go through them and get any code snippets I want or just close them if I read what I wanted.

I don't really know why, but I like the imperfectness of our calendar system now.

Stupid stuff like February having only 29 days is pretty funny and those 7 days of December 25th to January 1st is perfect because its an exact week.

It would be too boring if every month was the same.

Could we have fun stuff like `April Showers Bring may Flowers' if every month was just the same 28 days? I'm sure we could, but everything would be the same and that's boring.

isn't that the point?

Imposed restrictions are all about removing common treads so you have to think outside of the box.

Writing a poem in a certain meter is certainly challenging, but not the same thing as writing a poem where you can't use the letter `e'.

This isn't about self imposed restrictions, but merely a choice to do something the hard way.

Typically, extra labor -- that is rewarded -- for an art piece is going to be something that is pertinent for some common end.

Using Windows 95 to paint something doesn't add anything to the end of a piece.

Using marble and creating a structure that looks like a fluid river (or flowing something) adds value to the piece even though it was hard.

Using marble, period, adds value simply because the work is in marble (monetary value) and represents a skill that you can produce works of art in marble. Using Windows 95 means you can use dated technology to produce literally the same thing that Photoshop CS6 could product (most likely in less time): a JPG.

It literally is the same difference as painting a scene with your hands, and then doing it with your feet. Nothing was added and the work is no different, but you did it with your feet.

Pieces like these (and others, like a 5 year old's painting) can have monetary value.

People might place value on its level of enjoyment, such as yourself.

But artistically, you'd be hard pressed to find any value in this due to its only merit being "made in Windows 95 in 2013" or "made by a 7 year old" or whatever.

Typically, intentionally doing work in a difficult manner for the sake of making it hard on yourself isn't rewarded because it doesn't really add anything.

This piece isn't made better because it was made in Windows 95 and Paint, yet that's the only reason why we're talking about it.

The presentation for this was incredible.

He said it was the least of their problems, not that it was the least important.

I think the OP is trying to suggest that the lower limit of 100 euro to get into the Hall of Honour is much too low.

I liked the "Battle Station Fully Operational" before.

I did some quick googling, but didn't pick anything obvious up:

Blue Bottle Coffee has 'high-end' coffee shops that disallow laptops?

If so, any reasoning behind this?

You need to update your tutorial page to reflect the new design.

Other than that, this looks really cool.

Good work, guys.

Well there are always going to be exceptions to the case. I would also assume there are a greater number of people going to coffee shops in San Fransisco than there are in other cities.