[PD-dev] Re: Restructuring of CVS/externals

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Feb 5, 2006, at 4:27 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> Encapsulation is the key to writing good software in any language,  
>> call
>> it functions, procedures, methods, objects, abstractions, subpatches,
>> whatever. If you are writing patches that don't fit on 800x600 using
>> long names, I think you need to encapsulate more.
>
> Well, it's not that much the total space of the patch than how much  
> it's
> possible to have wires not pass under objects, so that the diagrams  
> stay
> clear. Because we don't have segmented patchcords either, you know.
>
> Somehow, patching requires two-dimensional use of the surface, but some
> things just seriously indent that space just because there's a lot to
> write in a single object box, e.g.:
>
> [#inner (4 4 # 76 -44 128 0 150 -85 -108 0 29 128 -21 0 0 0 0 256),  
> seed
> 128]
>
> now how can i have two boxes like that side to side in a 800x600 page?
> Note that newlines are allowed in objectboxes, and are properly  
> ignored,
> but they get so ignored that they don't even survive a save/load. Else,
> I'd gladly write it like:
>
> [#inner (4 4 #
>   76 -44  128 0
>  150 -85 -108 0
>   29 128  -21 0
>    0   0    0 256
> ), seed 128]
>
> like it ought to be, anyway.
>
>> Its kind of like saying we should all turn our screens 90 degrees so  
>> that we
>> can write longer functions in C. ;)
>
> When dealing with some people's C code, it wouldn't be a bad idea...
> combined with smaller fonts of course. I mean especially those  
> situations
> where you can't improve the encapsulation, because it would be  
> considered
> a "cosmetic" change and then rejected.
>
>>>> And its also now pretty clearly established in computer science that
>>>> clear naming saves much more time than short names.  Its all about
>>>> avoiding bugs.
>> Yes but clear names tend to be longer.
>
> I've got a question for you.
>
> Why did algebra switched to a very terse notation during the 16th  
> century,
> and that, for most purposes, scientists and engineers haven't looked  
> back
> much ?
>
> I mean, why did geometers start to write "a²+b²=h²" instead of writing
> "the square of the length of the adjacent side plus the square of the
> length of the opposed side equals the square of the length of the long
> side" like they used to do ?

Math is not computer science.  I know little about math, and I don't  
think its always applicable to computer science.

So I have a question for you:  why have programming languages and  
computer interfaces switched to longer words without looking back?

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

  As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be  
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and  
this we should do freely and generously.
                                                   - Benjamin Franklin