It's in contrast to Object-Oriented Programming. In OOP, you define classes of objects, with behaviors/functionality attached to them.
In Bevy, the focus is on the data. The ECS is like a big table (if you are not familiar, you can think of it by analogy with a database or spreadsheet). It stores all your data. Components are like the columns of the table, and entities are like rows.
You then write functionality separately. You can query the ECS to get the data you need. Your logic is not attached to any particular "object instance" or "object type".
Broadly it means there's an emphasis on creating your content declaratively, often in a config file format (i.e., not in code). Saying "there's an entity X, it has these behaviors, it has these properties" in XML or JSON or whatever else. And then actual code is written separately, to handle specific logic that uses those declarative properties.
I'm sure somebody else can give a more precise definition
I personally consider us to be "both" (and we've ping-ponged back and forth on the right term to use in our taglines). Our app model is "data driven" in that we encourage users to drive logic off of raw data whenever possible and provide tools to respond to data changes. We are also "data oriented". We spend a lot of time optimizing our ECS data structures to maximize cache efficiency. We are _also_ "data driven" in that we try to use hard numbers to motivate design decisions whenever possible (although i consider that to be a secondary descriptor of the project).
The syntactic structure of both "code" snippets seems equally clear (or maybe "uncertain in the same ways") to me, though my understanding might be a bit off if the author has biased the comparison by following generally accepted use of whitespace with one language and not the other.
This looks like another instance of slapping a pseudo-scientific veneer on top of conclusions driven more by untrained gut feeling in order to pretend one's subjective impressions are firmly grounded in objective reality. It's like the phrenology of programming languages.
Perhaps you know more of kazinator's history than I do, but that HN account wasn't even created until 2014, so saying kazinator is the one who started this very old argument requires some extra evidence.
I was referring to kazinator's specific argument rooted in languages using parenthesis for things besides expression grouping. I didn't see how that language-lawyering affected my overall point.
FWIW "in Lisp [parenthesis] also mean another level of application" is also technically incorrect (nesting is not always application), but I think it gets the actual point across better than being more abstract.
Is nobody else at the FSF capable of public advocacy? It seems to me that Stallman's unique ability was formulating the FSF's ideals in the first place, but once the platform is laid out, anyone who holds those ideals ought to be at least somewhat capable of promoting them. Even before this particular incident, it seems rms was not exactly well liked as a spokesman.
Well. The thing about these public speaking engagements of his at universities and stuff: There is image transfer going on there from a software developer celebrity to a spokesperson on copyright and related public policy issues. (Like when Bono speaks on environmental issues).
I went to see a Stallman lecture when I was at university too. They had booked the biggest lecture theatre and it was packed. But why? If my friend comes to me and says "Hey, I'm staying late today to see a talk by random spokesperson John Doe advocating free software. Wanna join?", my reaction is going to be: "Meh." You can have that any day of the week at any university that's seen as a desirable forum for public policy debate. But: "Wanna see the guy who created emacs and a billion other bits of software every one of us uses every single day? Wanna stick around afterwards for conference food and exchange a few sentences of smalltalk so that, for the rest of your life, you can tell people you ACTUALLY MET HIM?" Then "Hell yeah, count me in!"
Epstein's argument seems to assume that any information which shifts an undecided person's view is biased. Basic chemistry lessons make the claims of homeopaths seem downright silly. Does that mean that teaching chemistry is biased against homeopathy, or is homeopathy just not all that great an idea?
Well, perhaps that definition of bias is specific to strictly political topics rather than questions about the observable effects of various actions. Even so, by the standard of shifting views a certain direction, does Google present as much of a threat to democracy as higher education does?
> The core of the "bad investment" argument is that the money doesn't necessarily all get spent either way.
Yes but that is part of the problem with the argument: it basically assumes perfectly rational actors who never cheat contributing to their index fund so they can go do/buy whatever. It’s a lot harder to just not pay your mortgage one month.
I'm fine with paying a bit extra for more comfort and better service on a flight, but anything short of double the cost of the cheapest coach-class ticket never seems to get me that.
