On Aug 24, 2010, at 3:04 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-24 05:39, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
or use [constructorbang] and [destructorbang]
[createbang] and [destroybang] is a nice pair. :)
yes, but they have 2 drawbacks:
- the seem to be "actors" rather than "reactors"; e.g. i would expect
[destroybang] to destroy something, rather than tell me when things are destroyed. (btw, [loadbang] has the same issue)
If you know what a bang means, I think its quite clear that these produce bangs related to "load", "create", etc.
- they invent different names for things already well established and
baptized in the computer science, namely "constructor" and "destructor". this adds confusion for people that already know the concept, and doesn't help people that don't know the concepts yet (and i firmly believe that we shouldn't take patchers for fools - regardless of whether we want to be pedagogical or not)
the main pro is, that the names are shorter.
But Pd was created as a reaction against the overcomplicatedness of computer science, and those words are a perfect example of it. CS does not have bang, abstractions, patches, etc. yet somehow we communicate ;) Pd does not have constructors and destructors, tho the implementation might sometimes.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you." - Richard M. Stallman