That said, as long as windows is the bigger more profitable market I wouldnt expect a switch, unless the dev tooling situation becomes dramatically better on linux

I feel like these are often not well defined? "Its not a bug it's a feature", "premature optimization is the root of all evil", etc

In different contexts, "performant enough" means different things. Similarly, many times I've seen different teams within a company have differing opinions on "correctness"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity_component_system

> Entity–component–system (ECS) is a software architectural pattern mostly used in video game development for the representation of game world objects. An ECS comprises entities composed from components of data, with systems which operate on the components.

> Entity: An entity represents a general-purpose object. In a game engine context, for example, every coarse game object is represented as an entity. Usually, it only consists of a unique id. Implementations typically use a plain integer for this

> Common ECS approaches are highly compatible with, and are often combined with, data-oriented design techniques. Data for all instances of a component are contiguously stored together in physical memory, enabling efficient memory access for systems which operate over many entities.

> History > In 1998, Thief: The Dark Project pioneered an ECS.

So, according to wikipedia:

- An entity is typically just a numeric unique id

- Components are typically physically contiguous (i.e an array)

- Their history began with Thief pioneering them in 1998

I've seen "OOP" used to mean different things. For example, sometimes it's said about a language, and sometimes it's unrelated to language features and simply about the "style" or design/architecture/organization of a codebase (Some people say some C codebases are "object oriented", usually because they use either vtables or function pointers, or/and because they use opaque handles).

Even when talking about "OOP as a programming language descriptor", I've seen it used to mean different things. For example, a lot of people say rust is not object-oriented. But rust lets you define data types, and lets you define methods on data types, and has a language feature to let you create a pointer+vtable construct based on what can reasonably be called an interface (A "trait" in rust). The "only" things it's lacking are either ergonomics or inheritance, or possibly a culture of OOP. So one definition of "OOP" could be "A programming language that has inheritance as a language feature". But some people disagree with that, even when using it as a descriptor of programming languages. They might think it's actually about message passing, or encapsulation, or a combination, etc etc.

And when talking about "style"/design, it can also mean different things. In the talk this post is about, the speaker mentions "compile time hierarchies of encapsulation that match the domain model". I've seen teachers in university teach OOP as a way of modelling the "real world", and say that inheritance should be a semantic "is-a" relationship. I think that's the sort of thing the talk is about. But like I mentioned above, some people disagree and think an OOP codebase does not need to be a compile time hierarchy that represents the domain model, it can be used simply as a mechanism for polymorphism or as a way of code reuse.

Anyways, what I mean to say is that I don't think arguing about the specifics of what "OOP" means in the abstract very useful, and that since in this particular piece the author took the time to explicitly call out what they mean that we should probably stick to that.

I understand that OOP is a somewhat diluted term nowdays, meaning different things to different people and in different contexts/communities, but the author spent more than enough time clarifying in excruciating detail what he was talking about.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate how/where? (Other than the "arpanet in the 90s")

A more recent Argentinian president (Mauricio Macri) said a similar thing though: " If I had told them everything I was going to do, they would have voted to lock me up in an asylum" (Tl mine).

Original [2]: "Si les decía todo lo que iba a hacer, votaban por encerrarme en el manicomio"

[1]: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2023/11/12/si-decia-lo-que-...

[2] https://www.cronista.com/economia-politica/Macri-Si-les-deci...

These are the most common complaints I see from people

- They don't allow third party clients and some people have various complaints about theirs (e.g resource usage)

- Some people think discord is too popular, to the point some things that "don't belong there" have moved to discord. This is usually about being search indexable and requiring an account.

- Fear of monopolostic behaviour ( "enshittification" )

- Some people are mad that they killed public urls for files uploaded to discord. Mostly this is people running into links to images online and being unable to see them, usually not the uploaders

- Discord is centralized and you cannot host your own server

- The only client they allow you to use (See above) is propietary, and some people would rather run something open source

As for me personally, their search functionality drives me insane. I feel like the exact same query gets completely different results depending on the time of day and phase of the moon, making it super unreliable.