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