 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> wrote:
>>> Yes, being active in the development of POV-Ray 3.7 I *may* happen to personally
>>> get my hands dirty on the code of POV-Ray 4's SDL engine.
>> So it is so after all
>> :(
>
> So it is *what* after all? Me single-handedly going to take over the world or
> what??
That's what it sounds like, the Pov-Ray world anyway. You've greatly
increased my paranoia.
Any day now I expect the carpenter's union to redesign and rebuild my
house not for
convenience or comfort but to teach me the current accepted practice in
carpentry.
>
> Mwahahaha - Yeeees - I've always wanted to do that...
>
> Ah, BTW & FYI: Me being a contributing developer to POV-Ray doesn't mean that
> I'm member of the official dev team. I do contribute code now and then, but as
> for making decisions about which direction to go, the buck does *not* stop
> here.
Despite my concerns, I do appreciate all the work that the official and
unofficial
of Pov-Ray have done over the year --excellent work for my part.
David :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> For one, OOP more closely models how many people think of problems,
> while functional programming more closely models how mathematicians
> think of problems.
??!! Though the second clause of this sentence seems true to me, nothing
that I have read or heard in a long time seems so obviously false! It
makes
me wonder if I'm communicating with an entity of a different a species
or even
a different genus! (Is there an exclamation or ??!! icon?)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is where I mutter something about functional programming being
>> the future, and everybody agrees with me...
>
> There is still some debate about that, of course :)
That was actually sarcasm. ;-)
> For one, OOP more closely models how many people think of problems,
> while functional programming more closely models how mathematicians
> think of problems.
Depends who you think you're aiming your programming language at.
> It is not yet clear which one is better for managing
> large, complex programs in general.
People who use Haskell casually build interpretters, compilers, logic
simulation systems, and other things usually thought of as "hard" in
normal programming languages. Whether this is to do with Haskell or the
sort of people who use Haskell remains to be seen of course... ;-)
> (especially since there are many
> things a computer does that are still more closely aligned with
> imperative programming. These things are easier to wrap in OOP, which
> has concepts for both data and actions).
One might ask when computers will start to be designed to operate in a
more functional way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's what it sounds like, the Pov-Ray world anyway. You've greatly
> increased my paranoia.
> Any day now I expect the carpenter's union to redesign and rebuild my
> house not for
> convenience or comfort but to teach me the current accepted practice in
> carpentry.
Even if POV4 does change to an OOP model that you don't like, a) that is not
going to be released for decades, and b) you are free to still use the
latest stable 3.x release. I wouldn't worry about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > For one, OOP more closely models how many people think of problems,
> > while functional programming more closely models how mathematicians
> > think of problems.
> ??!! Though the second clause of this sentence seems true to me, nothing
> that I have read or heard in a long time seems so obviously false!
And exactly what is it that makes it false?
Object-oriented programming closely matches the thought process of people.
OOP can be deconstructed into to most basic elements: Concepts and algorithms.
People think about things conceptually. For example, you can have one pen,
one car, one dog, and so on.
Moreover, people use hierarchies of concepts. Some concepts are more
abstract while other concepts are more concrete. For example, the concept
of "animal" is more abstract than the concept of "dog" or "cat", which are
more concrete. Moreover, there's a hierarchical relationship between these
concepts: A dog is an animal, and a cat is an animal (but a dog is not a cat).
Concepts can have properties to them. For example a dog has color, weight,
gender, race, etc. These properties can be different for different dogs.
Likewise the concept of "book" can have many properties, including its title,
author, date of publication, cover picture, table of contents, and so on
(all of which in themselves are also concepts).
The other basic element of OOP is algorithms. These can be thought in the
same way as food recipes. Food recipes use some concepts (ingredients, cooking
utensils, etc) and a list of instructions on how to prepare the meal.
This is the way people think naturally, and object-oriented programming
simulates this kind of design: It defines concepts (which may be hierarchical)
and algorithms on what to do with those concepts.
Now please explain to me exactly what here is "so obviously false"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> It is not yet clear which one is better for managing
> large, complex programs in general
I have hard time believing that large programs written in a functional
language like Haskell don't use one of the basic features of OOP: Modularity.
Modularity (and the abstraction related to it) is one of the most essential
properties of a large project, if you want it to be manageable.
Functional programming sounds to me more like just a way of expressing
what you want to do (ie. algorithms), not how you should distribute your
code among modules. Modularity transcends things like imperative or
functional programming paradigms. You could say it's a metaparadigm used
in many if not most large projects, regardless of the language used.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/23/09 08:07, David H. Burns wrote:
> ??!! Though the second clause of this sentence seems true to me, nothing
> that I have read or heard in a long time seems so obviously false! It makes
Perhaps it's because you tried learning OOP from C++/Java?
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)
Let's say you want to have lots of balls in your scene. You want some
to be red, some blue, and some green. And some of _those_ you want to be
translucent.
So you create your "basic" ball as a sphere with little texture. You
subclass it to create two kinds of balls: "solid" and "translucent". In
terms of actual code, you just create a new object that is the subclass
of your "basic", and you merely add to it the texture that makes it
translucent.
Then you can subclass each to get the red, blue and green balls.
--
No, Taco Bell is NOT the Mexican Phone Company!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/23/09 07:55, David H. Burns wrote:
> That's what it sounds like, the Pov-Ray world anyway. You've greatly
> increased my paranoia.
> Any day now I expect the carpenter's union to redesign and rebuild my
> house not for
> convenience or comfort but to teach me the current accepted practice in
> carpentry.
Try lying in front of the house when the bulldozers come. And if you
see someone coming along hugging a towel, become friends with him.
Otherwise your life will be in danger.
And not because of the bulldozers.
--
No, Taco Bell is NOT the Mexican Phone Company!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This is the way people think naturally, and object-oriented programming
> simulates this kind of design: It defines concepts (which may be hierarchical)
> and algorithms on what to do with those concepts.
>
> Now please explain to me exactly what here is "so obviously false"?
>
*I* don't think, naturally or otherwise, like any OOP programming I have
seen!! You may be trying to
read your on programming philosophy onto the world, or we may be of
different genera. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
