[PD] "object" or "class" in pdpedia

[Chris McCormick]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
> 
> > This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas I'd
> > prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think
> > the difference is something only computer scientists are interested
> > in and Pd has a tradition of not always following the path of
> > mainstream computer science anyway, because it's not a tool mainly
> > targetting computer scientists but one targetting artists. I'd say,,
> > reserve the term class for pd-dev.
> 
> It occured to me that it may sound like I'd try to "dumb down" Pd for
> artists, which is not my intention, so I'd like to clarify a bit: 
> 
> We're talking about what term to use in pdpedia for the descriptions
> of the available building blocks for patches, mainly externals and
> abstractions. When building patches, what users (scientists and
> artists) deal with, are objects. The only thing you can do with a
> class when building a patch is to make an instance of it: an object of
> the class. 
> 
> So in the pdpedia context using the term "object" for the list of
> building blocks in my view wouldn't be wrong at all. As "object" also
> is the term that is generally used when talking about Pd patches
> here--as in: "Just put an [osc~] object into your patch to make a sine
> wave." Nobody says: "Instantiate the [osc~] class to make a sine
> wave."--it is perfectly valid to use "object/symbol" on pdpedia. IMO
> at least.

Once again Frank provides the concise voice of reason! I agree with 100%
with this in the case of pdpedia and most every day usages. However I
see nothing wrong with establishing a rule of thumb for educators and
other people describing pd, to follow when they do definately want to
describe the "class of objects" of type [osc~] not just to say "put an
[osc~] object into your patch" but for something more complicated, and
call this the "object class" like Matju says. For example if someone
is explaining about what externals are. That is a good and every-day
intuitive use of the word "class" for normal people as well as being
acceptable to us abnormal computer scientists (as Matju pointed out
already).

Best,

Chris.

-------------------
http://mccormick.cx