text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[1615.58 --> 1615.78] mind.
[1616.24 --> 1616.76] And then he
[1616.76 --> 1617.42] told me, well,
[1617.48 --> 1618.18] you know how the
[1618.18 --> 1618.94] JavaScript people
[1618.94 --> 1620.00] say that a
[1620.00 --> 1621.30] prototype is the
[1621.30 --> 1622.04] best way to
[1622.04 --> 1623.58] define object-oriented.
[1623.94 --> 1624.88] And my takeaway
[1624.88 --> 1625.98] from this is that
[1625.98 --> 1627.12] every night I go
[1627.12 --> 1628.08] to sleep next to
[1628.08 --> 1628.84] a man who
[1628.84 --> 1629.48] quotes the
[1629.48 --> 1630.32] JavaScript people.
[1632.32 --> 1633.04] That's it.
[1633.84 --> 1634.84] I thought it was
[1634.84 --> 1635.58] a pretty cool
[1635.58 --> 1636.48] observation, to be
[1636.48 --> 1637.18] honest, but
[1637.18 --> 1638.76] still concerning.
[1638.76 --> 1640.38] I'll keep you
[1640.38 --> 1640.78] posted.
[1642.48 --> 1643.70] The quote
[1643.70 --> 1644.30] there where it
[1644.30 --> 1645.48] says it
[1645.48 --> 1646.66] separates the
[1646.66 --> 1647.58] idea of data
[1647.58 --> 1648.36] and behavior, I
[1648.36 --> 1648.68] think that's
[1648.68 --> 1649.34] the important
[1649.34 --> 1649.92] part of that
[1649.92 --> 1650.30] area.
[1650.74 --> 1651.24] But I'm having
[1651.24 --> 1652.08] a hard time
[1652.08 --> 1652.72] articulating
[1652.72 --> 1654.74] exactly why in
[1654.74 --> 1655.16] my head.
[1655.50 --> 1656.06] You think that
[1656.06 --> 1656.72] that is a good
[1656.72 --> 1657.84] way to express
[1657.84 --> 1658.90] object-oriented?
[1659.42 --> 1660.18] Yeah, I do.
[1660.36 --> 1661.12] Extracting away
[1661.12 --> 1662.36] the data from
[1662.36 --> 1663.38] the functionality?
[1663.80 --> 1664.46] Yeah, I think
[1664.46 --> 1665.42] going to what
[1665.42 --> 1665.84] you're saying
[1665.84 --> 1666.66] where Go is
[1666.66 --> 1667.50] almost a more
[1667.50 --> 1668.70] pure version of
[1668.70 --> 1669.56] object-orientation.
[1669.64 --> 1670.22] I think that's
[1670.22 --> 1671.24] what leads to
[1671.24 --> 1671.56] it, right?
[1671.62 --> 1672.42] The idea that,
[1672.92 --> 1673.26] I don't know,
[1673.32 --> 1673.70] I'd have to
[1673.70 --> 1674.16] really sit down
[1674.16 --> 1674.64] and think about
[1674.64 --> 1675.68] it, but that's
[1675.68 --> 1676.36] where my mind
[1676.36 --> 1676.80] is going.
[1677.08 --> 1678.12] I think that I
[1678.12 --> 1680.10] found something
[1680.10 --> 1681.80] that the person
[1681.80 --> 1683.46] that wrote me
[1683.46 --> 1684.68] about Go not
[1684.68 --> 1685.62] being object-oriented
[1685.62 --> 1687.42] language might be
[1687.42 --> 1688.48] related to.
[1689.04 --> 1689.98] So I searched
[1689.98 --> 1690.72] for Ron Pike
[1690.72 --> 1691.42] in object-oriented
[1691.42 --> 1692.22] and I found
[1692.22 --> 1692.74] Wikipedia.
[1693.96 --> 1695.02] And Wikipedia,
[1695.52 --> 1696.50] he is
[1696.50 --> 1697.26] criticizing
[1697.26 --> 1698.56] object-oriented.
[1699.12 --> 1700.18] So it's
[1700.18 --> 1700.86] possible that
[1700.86 --> 1701.76] that was what
[1701.76 --> 1702.78] that quote
[1702.78 --> 1703.50] was about.
[1703.84 --> 1704.30] If you want to
[1704.30 --> 1704.86] read this out
[1704.86 --> 1705.96] and share this
[1705.96 --> 1706.64] later in our
[1706.64 --> 1707.32] show notes,
[1707.40 --> 1708.18] everybody can go
[1708.18 --> 1708.86] back to this
[1708.86 --> 1709.06] too.
[1709.48 --> 1710.34] Yeah, I think
[1710.34 --> 1710.84] it's funny.
[1711.98 --> 1712.80] I mean,
[1712.94 --> 1713.46] clearly,
[1714.06 --> 1714.90] yes, I will