clipka wrote:


> I'd guess you *do* some "OOP (= Object Oriented Programming) thinking" when
> working with POV-Ray; it's just that you don't notice, because you admittedly
> don't know what Object Oriented Programming actually is - 
We may all be engaging in muddy thinking and language here. I do kind of 
think
in terms of "objects" when using Pov-Ray, but I wouldn't call that "OOP 
(= Object
Oriented Programming) thinking", even if that phrase means 
anything--which I doubt.
It might be more accurate to say that I am writing code which conforms 
to the syntax dictated by
the SDL -- regardless of what kind of thinking leads to it. As I have 
said several times before:
I think the concept of "object" is a real advance in programming but 
"OOP" seems
a lot more than simpling making use of "objects" which "contain" both 
data members
and functions ("methods")

>you only know how
> typical end results from such thought processes look like, when formulated in a
> general-purpose language retrofitted to better support such formulations
> ("better" as in "better than nothing") - a language which, by the way, would
> surely happen to be unsuited for a POV-Ray SDL.

This seems to be true, where would I find some *real* OOP to look at?

David

Post a reply to this message