Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/23/09 11:15, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> I'm sure you think in OOP all the time with POV-Ray. You create a
>>> sphere. It's an object with certain properties (texture, location,
>>> etc). Now let's say you want to rotate the sphere, does it hurt so
>>> much to do something like:
>>>
>>> mysphere.rotate(45)
>>>
>>
>> No! I think in terms of objects, not of OOP. The concept of an "object"
>> as used
>> in Pov-Ray in a valuable tool for thinking and programming -and used
>> well there.
>> What I have seen of OOP programming is something else. :)
>>
>> David
>>
> 
>     OK. I have no idea what you're saying.
> 
>     What is the "No" referring to? Are you saying "no, it doesn't hurt"? 
> Are you saying "No, I hate that way of doing it"? Are you sweeping your 
> hand across my whole message and saying "No! I can't stand it!"?
> 


I'm sorry to seem unclear, but to me it seems that the "No" and the rest 
of my
statement clearly refer to the assertion that I think in OOP all the 
time when using
Pov-Ray. It seems to me that I don't, though perhaps others may know my
mind better that I do. In fact. since OOP means Object Oriented 
Programming, it seems
absurd to say that I think in it (or in any other kind of programming). 
On the other hand,
I am repeated told that I don't know what OOP means; maybe it *doesn't* mean
"Object Oriented Programming"(acronyms are always obstacles to 
communication),
but some philosophy or mystery into which I have not been initiated. In 
any case, it seems
an overstatement at least for someone else to say I thing in it. :)

David

Post a reply to this message