[PD] PD OOP?

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:

> You might want to have a look at Jamie Bullock's abstraction based 
> solution(which also went out on this list). Which was quite eloquent, if 
> a little limiting at first. It's a little way back from the dream of 
> dropping lines of OO code into pd but it's the kind of thing, when I 
> find a syntax I like for this, could be useful to streamline some of my 
> patching. 

I think that you are confusing OO concepts with something else. Just 
because you use Ruby doesn't mean you use the OO features of it (in a way 
that really distinguishes it from non-OO).

Base OO concepts are Ruby's classes, Ruby's modules, Pd's abstractions, 
Ruby's self, Pd's $0, etc.

I use the words "OO" and "OOP" not implying some kind of wholly-written 
programme in imperative fashion. I think that this is most appropriate 
than saying OOP is necessarily built-upon the concepts of "structured 
programming", because the latter ignores all the languages that don't fit 
with plain "structured programming" while inspiring themselves a lot from 
OOP ideas. If you care about language categorisation and comparison, you 
do use the word "OOP" in a more generic way.

> volume = .05,

The .05 syntax is a syntax error since Ruby 1.7 (many years ago).

  _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC