Then, surely, you should be able to find a link to a ECS class's source easily. So where is it?
Also, remember, it's not my responsibility to search to prove your arguments. Burden of proof is on the claimant, as it goes.
Also, remember, it's not my responsibility to search to prove your arguments. Burden of proof is on the claimant, as it goes.
Taking a cursory look (which is already beyond my responsibilities) at https://github.com/redxdev/ECS/blob/master/ECS.h, by searching "class ECS" and "struct ECS" and "EntityComponentSystem" wields no results.
No, they aren't.
> You should probably learn how to program before arguing all this stuff.
Notice how I didn't reveal whether I program or not, yet you still made assumptions about it. I suspect that you either are a poor programmer or a troll.
Didn't you just say something about "ad hominem" (even though you used it incorrectly, pointing out something negative if it's related is not ad hominem).
You don't know what a data structure is or what a class does or doesn't do, that's not something programmers have to worry about. They don't have to consult wikipedia for a definition.
Since you failed to cite any third party source for definitions, whether your definitions are actually conventional depend solely on your authority as a programmer, in contrast to me, who cited Wikipedia (and there are many others I can cite too). An attack on your authority is no longer a fallacy, but, towards me, it is, since I never relied on my authority as a programmer.
Never mind the fact that being a good programmer doesn't mean you know the definition of technical terms.
Never mind the fact that being a good programmer doesn't mean you know the definition of technical terms.
Yes it does. How would you know?
> Yes it does. How would you know?
Better question: why being a good programmer guarantees you good knowledge about technical definitions? Being a good mason doesn't mean you have the formal knowledge of a civil engineer.