[PD] Max & Pd

Mathieu Bouchard matju at artengine.ca
Sat Dec 8 21:47:56 CET 2007

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> Objectclasses in object-oriented languages like Java, etc. accept
> many messages, but I think that Max is more like a functional
> language than an object-oriented one, (but somewhere in between).

On average, Pd/Max are more functional-or-procedural than OOP, because 
they tend to use OOP only as wrappers for indivual functions, decorated 
with methods that mostly just set arguments in advance. However they still 
offer the power to make bigger classes.

In Java, the tendency is to make big classes, plenty of methods. This is 
in part influenced by the rule that each public class has to be in a 
different file. People want to make a class worth the effort of having a 
separate file, so they design in a way that each class does more (unless 
they are paid by the number of files written!).

In some other languages, I may have a bunch of classes that are 5 lines 
long, perhaps even 1 line each. I may even be creating one class per 
iteration of a for-loop that processes a spec of a protocol or 
file-format. The class concept is not pedestalised and thus it is a 
concept that is more fluid, more integrated and less special.

> I'm not saying I have the answer (yet? :) but this for me, thinking
> about these kinds of things makes for a more intuitive and fluid
> programming language.

Combinations of small objects are also good. (Java has also the problem of 
requiring the chaining of too many small objects some time. It's difficult 
to strike a balance between the two problems when your goal is to support 
everything at once)

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada

More information about the Pd-list mailing list