<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I'm amazed just how much conversation this has caused, and I've only had a chance to skim-read all the replies that it's gained today so here's a couple of answers. <div><br></div><div>* Perhaps it's not really OOP, my idea was, like most web development services, to have an 'in line' embed of ruby (or another language, I can learn) within a pd object. thus allowing conditional logic and/or mathematical expressions to be contained within the arguments for that object. </div><div><br></div><div>* I realize that in terms of the end-product, PD can do most, if not all, operations most languages can, with the benefit of real-time operation and what is, certainly for newbies, a more readable data flow.</div><div><br></div><div>* It looks like there's a lot of debate going around, it was, largely a passing notion that started it. However I realize PD can do (probably) anything I would be likely to do with it using this embedded OOP (sorry if that is the wrong definition), it really was just "Hmmm, I wonder if ruby lines could be used in-line in Pd"</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Once again, amazed by the response. Perhaps someone will make this happen at some point. Perhaps I should, although I'll probably have to learn some C first. </div><div><br></div><div>Andrew</div><div><br><br>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:47:24 -0500<br>From: matju@artengine.ca<br>To: lsutton@libero.it<br>CC: pd-list@iem.at<br>Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?<br><br><pre>On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:<br>> I agree on this.. but why you say is it sad? It means Pd is modular like any <br>> sane programming 'environment'... You couldn't do much in a programming <br>> language using it vanilla no? (well apart from assembler maybe)... IMHO<br> <br>It's sad because many of the most basic building blocks have to be <br>provided outside of pd-vanilla, for things that are normally considered <br>built-in in most any other language. We could ignore pd-vanilla but so <br>many of us don't, and so, pd-vanilla's contents is still the common basis <br>to all of us, instead of something more complete.<br> <br>> In the end though.. does it really make sense to compare Pd (and <br>> dataflow in general) to paradigms of 'written' languages?<br> <br>I introduced the word "dataflow" in the pd community SO THAT we compare pd <br>to other programming languages. The word is not in opposition to <br>'written', as there are also plenty of "dataflow" languages that are <br>'written', and there are also several wholly different kinds of "dataflow" <br>languages, of which pd/max is only one family.<br> <br>But why wouldn't it "really" make sense to do this comparison ? You don't <br>even say that, as far as I can understand what you say.<br> <br>> I mean I do see a point in having something like Python easily usable <br>> within Pd (see my recent questions about Py), but this is dataflow, I <br>> guess if people (like me) love to use it it's because for doing this <br>> type of stuff [...] it's more fun than doing it in more 'traditional' <br>> languages like C(sound) and similar.<br> <br>And what does that change about anything ? I don't see where you are going <br>with that.<br> <br>> I won't say audio or I'll get flamed by Mathieu :)<br> <br>So, according to you, is it a flame, to point out that people do whatever <br>else using pd ?<br> <br> _______________________________________________________________________<br>| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC<br></pre><br>_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</div> </body>
</html>