Happy TADC: The Last Act day! I won't be seeing it until this weekend, but in rewatching the series again, I wanted to finally sit down and address something that stood out to me all the from the pilot: the use of the term "abstraction" for the big scary monster people turn in to
You see, "abstraction" has a special meaning in Computer Science. It's one of the "four pillars of Object-Oriented Programming", and I feel like that definition really *doesn't* line up with how TADC uses it
To grossly oversimplify: "abstract" in CS is more like "generic" or "template". Abstract classes and methods have definitions for *what* they do, but not *how* they do. For example, you can have an abstract class called Animal, with an abstract method called "move()". Animal just says the ability to move exists, it doesn't say how that happens. Instead, Human takes Animal as a template and says you move() by walking, and Bird takes Animal as a template and says you move() by flying.
The closest approximation in the Circus would be like the NPC mannequins, under the old theory that they could be "claimed" by new players entering (but even that is imperfect since technically you can't actually spawn objects from an abstract class, you have to use a fully defined class)
Those monsters that Kaufmo and Queenie and all the others turned into dont really seem to fit that definition. "Corruptions"? Sure. But not "abstractions"
Now, that's all easy enough to dismiss as simply "Gooseworx is not familiar with OOP and just chose a term that seemed cool/fitting", and yeah that's exactly what I did eight episodes ago. After all, they are still pretty artistically abstract. Without that specific technical context, it is definitely a reasonable term. Through the first 7 episodes, I didn't question it
🧵 1/2
#TheAmazingDigitalCircus #TADC #GlitchProductions #GlitchProd #GLITCH