[fluffybucktsnek]

It would be ad hominen argument if it was an argument, not a side note. Whereas, in your case, you used to dismiss my position as "no real programmer needs to consult the Wikipedia for definitions" (according to whom, you?).

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.

[CyberDildonics]

I linked you hundred different ecs data structures, did you ever learn how to program?

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?

[fluffybucktsnek]

Your link was basically a gish-gallop. I explicitly asked to asked link an "ECS" class source, instead you link an index of ECS libraries/engines/frameworks (not data structures, mind you). I picked the first, showed there was no "ECS" class, and your retort was "Theyre ecs". Now, your only retort is basically "all programmers now this". Can't speak for all programmers, but if someone were to ask for a array list implementation, I can easily directly link to Rust's Vec, or C++'s std::vector, or Java's ArrayList. Why can't you do the same for ECS if: a) it's also a class; b) it's easy to find?

> 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.