On 10/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Frank Barknecht</b> <<a href="mailto:fbar@footils.org">fbar@footils.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hallo,<br>Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:<br><br>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:<br>><br>> >I believe, the choice between a 1-dimensional language like SC and a<br>> >2-dimensional one like Pd is a state of mind thing. I do my fair share
<br>> >of 1-dim programming,<br>><br>> Non-graphical languages are still 2-dimensional as they are written,<br>> because people use lines (rows) as logical units of code. The compiler<br>> makes a largely 1-dimensional interpretation of it, but this is not how
<br>> people write and read code. Similarly, Pd almost completely ignores the<br>> actual position of the objects (except [inlet] and [outlet]) when<br>> interpreting a patch.<br><br>In usual text based languages like C, Lisp, Forth, Python, Java, ...
<br>the second dimension is largely irrelevant, because every identifier<br>only is concerned with what's left or right of it, not what's on top</blockquote><div><br>From the point of view of the compiler, perhaps, but I think most programmers are very concerned with vertical arrangement, in the sense of how they think, no? A .c file with line breaks removed looks like gibberish to a human, though it may compile fine.
<br>In either text-based or dataflow languages, actual program flow can vary, whatever the order of elements, so methinks there is always some kind of temporal and conditional thought going on. If time is another dimension, then perhaps the debate is 2 vs. 3 dimensions?
<br><br>-Chuckk<br><br></div></div>-- <br><a href="http://www.badmuthahubbard.com">http://www.badmuthahubbard.com</a>