[PD] Abstractions x Externals
Mathieu Bouchard
matju at artengine.ca
Wed Feb 16 14:48:29 CET 2011
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> - Not that this is particularly important, but the word "class" will not
> intensify the BIG confusion of considering PureData as a object-oriented
> language even further?
It's not even particularly wrong to call PureData an object-oriented
language. It just shouldn't be the words we use the most, because it's not
its most defining characteristic. But "object-oriented" doesn't refer to a
single way of doing things... it's a collection of related approaches.
Consider the definition of OOP to be fuzzy, and PureData being on the
fuzzy edge.
> - I understand the word 'external' as external to PD, but PD isn't
> itself written in C/C++?
They're external to the pd language, because inside of [+], [moses],
[metro], etc., there are pieces of behaviour that aren't coded in terms of
patching in pd. I mean, [+], [moses], [metro] are made to do patching with
them, but they aren't made of patching.
> Aren't they 'extensions' ? Externals, following that logic, are the ones
> written in Lua, Python, Ruby, Haskell etc.
Never seen the word "extension" in the Pd world. Speaking of Ruby, over
there, they have a word for what Miller and I calls "externals" : they say
"extensions".
> Abstraction makes a lot of sense, since they really are abstractions
> written in PD, even if from the point of the user they can look like a
> built-in 'object'.
what about a box makes it look built-in vs not ?... is it just the habit
of having learned a lot of built-ins and then suddenly realise that the
boxes don't have to be built into ?
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list