[PD] FW: PD OOP?

[Andrew Faraday]

From: jbturgid at hotmail.com
To: matju at artengine.ca
Subject: RE: [PD] PD OOP?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:24:46 +0000








I'm considering, next time I get time to really focus on some PD, writing some kind of abstraction for [shell] and irb. Although I realize this might be really clunky to operate. The main problem I've got with that is, probably, the syntax for the arguments, to be honest, if I could write my ruby in ticks and then run something like [l2s] on that part I'd be well on the way to a real-time ruby object. Probs something like:
[irb 100 2 '$1 * 2' ]
arguments like$1 polling rate (feeding a metro)$2 creation argument$3 (inside ticks) ruby line(s) ($x could represent inlets, going to pack, then the ruby statement in a message, gaps filled from the inlets and going to shell (on irb))
Could probably be done, but as I say, would take a bit of time to get that really usable. 
I'm not sure, but the best way might be to just have one shell open and the irb abstraction generating sends to this. 'course routing any returns might be difficult. But this way there would be one set of ruby variables. 
Anyone know how I can make a list one of the arguments for an abstraction?
Andrew

> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:31:35 -0500
> From: matju at artengine.ca
> To: jbturgid at hotmail.com
> CC: lsutton at libero.it; pd-list at iem.at
> Subject: RE: [PD] PD OOP?
> 
> 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
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20101218/d83f6dcb/attachment.htm>