[PD] Abstractions x Externals

[Mathieu Bouchard]

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