[PD] PD OOP?

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:

> * Perhaps it's not really OOP,

Ruby is definitely OOP, but what you want is not "OOP", it's Ruby itself.

> * It looks like there's a lot of debate going around, it was, largely a 
> passing notion that started it. However I realize PD can do (probably) 
> anything I would be likely to do with it using this embedded OOP (sorry 
> if that is the wrong definition), it really was just "Hmmm, I wonder if 
> ruby lines could be used in-line in Pd"

Pd has already much support for what is called OOP, but what you want is 
the written syntax of Ruby, which is also OOP (and somewhat more so), but 
most of all, what distinguishes Ruby's syntax is that it's very concise 
for a lot of jobs.

Ruby's syntax is most characteristically the result of designers 
optimising for conciseness. (Contrast this with Java, designed for people 
who have the impression that more verbosity means more solidness and/or 
more understandability)

Ruby also has a damn lot of good libraries, just like Python and Perl do.

> Once again, amazed by the response. Perhaps someone will make this 
> happen at some point. Perhaps I should, although I'll probably have to 
> learn some C first. 

I recommend not using libruby, because if you can make libruby not crash 
as a pd module, you're some kind of genius.

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