Do We Worship Complexity?

Re:Do We Worship Complexity? by lasagnaphil on Wednesday October 17, 2018 @02:45AM (#18236707)

I think the most of the data-oriented-programming stuff referenced nowadays are not about conceptual data (how humans understand it), but data in the hardware (how machines understand it). In that regard, in Lisp you can’t really control memory allocation/alignment as flexible as C/C++, (due to its conceptual assumptions with data), so I don’t know how you would do DOP well in Lisp:

(although it might sometimes serve well as a configuration language alongside high-performance C++ code like in gamedev...)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do We Worship Complexity? by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 17, 2018 @02:53AM (#18236736)

Those are two different kinds of programming, which unfortunately get similar labels.

The C++/gamedev "data-oriented programming" is about structuring your in a way that's friendly to CPU cache. It turns the programmer-friendly abstractions inside-out in order to make execution as efficient as possible.

The Clojure/Lisp/functional "data-oriented programming" is about building your (programmer-level) abstractions around basic data structures like lists and maps. It's meant to simplify your code and make it more robust.

The two "data-oriented programming" paradigms are pretty much opposites in every way except the name. They both focus on data, but the resulting data structures are vastly different.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do We Worship Complexity? by lispm on Wednesday October 17, 2018 @04:10AM (#18237116)

Actual Lisp implementations need to interface to the C/C++ side, thus they have non-standard / quasi-standard ways to deal with raw/foreign memory and with C types.

[ Parent | on HN ]