[PD] PD OOP?

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
> I agree on this.. but why you say is it sad? It means Pd is modular like any 
> sane programming 'environment'... You couldn't do much in a programming 
> language using it vanilla no? (well apart from assembler maybe)... IMHO

It's sad because many of the most basic building blocks have to be 
provided outside of pd-vanilla, for things that are normally considered 
built-in in most any other language. We could ignore pd-vanilla but so 
many of us don't, and so, pd-vanilla's contents is still the common basis 
to all of us, instead of something more complete.

> In the end though.. does it really make sense to compare Pd (and 
> dataflow in general) to paradigms of 'written' languages?

I introduced the word "dataflow" in the pd community SO THAT we compare pd 
to other programming languages. The word is not in opposition to 
'written', as there are also plenty of "dataflow" languages that are 
'written', and there are also several wholly different kinds of "dataflow" 
languages, of which pd/max is only one family.

But why wouldn't it "really" make sense to do this comparison ? You don't 
even say that, as far as I can understand what you say.

> I mean I do see a point in having something like Python easily usable 
> within Pd (see my recent questions about Py), but this is dataflow, I 
> guess if people (like me) love to use it it's because for doing this 
> type of stuff [...] it's more fun than doing it in more 'traditional' 
> languages like C(sound) and similar.

And what does that change about anything ? I don't see where you are going 
with that.

> I won't say audio or I'll get flamed by Mathieu :)

So, according to you, is it a flame, to point out that people do whatever 
else using pd ?

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