 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> > *Now* you're talking about something OOP- and programming-related:
> > Modularization. But what on earth does your previous post's talk of "concepts",
> > pens, cars, dogs and cats have to do with this?
>
> In object-oriented programming a class is basically a user-defined type,
> and a user-defined type is a concept. For example, "a string" is a concept,
> and a string class is the implementation of that concept.
Yeah yeah yeah... sure... I'm repeating myself here: *I* know how to map your
words to OOP, so you needn't tell me. It still doesn't convince me that
OOP-newbies have any idea what this cats & dogs crap is all about, and
introducing OOP in a much different way would make it much easier to grasp.
Let alone that OOP is not just "OOP". It is a combination of multiple concepts,
many of which don't require each other; the typical blurp tries to introduce
the whole "concept" of OOP all at once, instead of introducing the concepts one
by one.
> [lotsa stuff skipped]
> Modular programming does know the concept of instantiating modules. For
> example the modula programming language (which is not an OOP language) has
> modules with public and private interfaces, and which can be instantiated
> and referenced. (What makes it non-OOP is that it doesn't support inheritance
> nor obviously dynamic binding.)
.... and that's a very typical example of how modularity is commonly percieved,
huh?
Yes, modules occasionally *are* instantiated and referenced; but in typical
modular projects they're *not*, and instead just resemble code libraries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I remember once way back, having written docs for the library, I was sitting
> there coding it up. (The project was a rewrite from BASIC to C, so I had a
> real good idea what the library needed to do.) I had a stack of
> documentation, and I was implementing each function. The "best" programmer
> in the company comes up and asks what I'm doing, and I tell him. He points
> to the inch-thick print-out, asks what it is, and I tell him it's the docs.
> He says, sounding baffled, "How can you write the docs before the program?"
> I ask him "How can you know when you're done programming without writing the
> docs first?"
Now, ever wondered what the subtleties between SW development, programming and
coding may be?
What you did was SW development: Designing a program, then coding it.
What the other guy did was programming: Just make sure to produce a program, no
matter how...
:)
(BTW, did you know that your working style costs jobs? 'Cause as long as people
program software instead of developing it, you can't just outsource the coding
part to India... :P)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> >> Shouldn't that be "the Buck"? ;)
> >
> > ??
>
> As in, David K Buck :)
Ah - now here comes light ;)
But no: Leader of the dev team is currently Chris Cason :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> 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. :)
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 - 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/24/09 08:49, Invisible wrote:
>> It would make things like doing complex simulations much easier,
>> because you could use eg C++ to get good speed, and have POV render
>> the result quickly each frame. Also if you wanted to use Haskell, or
>> anything else, you could.
>
> That's an interesting idea. However, I have a vague recollection that
> this would be incompatible with the terms of the POV-Ray license.
The POV-Ray license will either disappear in 4.0, or will be made
compatible with one of those alleged "free" licenses.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I don't want to have to write something like those programs, I have
> seen to produce a Pov-Ray
> script!
Um... wait a second here: You've looked at code written to create POV-Ray code?
Now that's metaprogramming, which tends to look sick in *any* language that's
not designed for it, whether it be OOP or not.
> But, apparently, that is a worry for only the remote future.
Hmm... I don't really think so. Not if you talk about decares here. 3.7 did
indeed take a while to come out (still not released), but after all it was a
major rewrite of virtually the whole code, with some serious design changes to
get it to support SMP. Compared to that, I guess development of POV-Ray 4 will
be a piece of cake - the main objectives (um... no pun intended here, really)
being that major overhaul of the SDL (but that will just mean a rewrite of the
parser, leaving the remaining code untouched), and a change in licensing to go
for GPL (not much left to do there; AFAIK virtually all previous contributors
have given their OK by now, and the remaining pieces of code have been
completely re-written).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Check the povray.pov4.discussion.general group, particularly the
>>> threads "Next Generation SDL Brainstorming" and "Next Generation SDL:
>>> What's wrong with Lua, JavaScript, ...".
>>
>> Thanks, Scott,
>> I see only 4 threads and neither of these. Thunderbird is giving me
>> problem?
>
> I don't use Thunderbird, but maybe someone else might be able to help
> you. In Windows Live Mail you can choose "Tools -> Get Next <X> Headers"
> where X is the value you set for how many to download at a time - maybe
> there is something similar?
>
> If not then you can always use the web view here:
>
> http://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/
>
>
Thanks. I haven't had this problem with the other Newgroups. I'll look
at it via
the web.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/24/09 07:38, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> Now you guys know how *I* feel when I try to tell people that
>>> functional programming is a good idea. ;-) Nobody ever seems to
>>> believe me...
>>
>> You encourage me. But we seem to be out of fad. ;-) :) (An attachment
>
> Hardly, What you like is procedural. Functional programming is a
> whole other beast altogether, where you normally don't do explicit loops
> but use constructs like map, filter, etc. Lots of lambdas thrown in as
> well.
>
So your not out of fad. My ignorance is showing. I'm not a professional
programmer
and have done little except for my own amusement. That being so much of
your
terminology is unfamiliar to me. I think that this thread is the only
time I have
actually talked to anyone specifically about programming theory --
although I did
a lot of reading a number of years ago.
You encourage me anyway.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> (BTW, did you know that your working style costs jobs? 'Cause as long as people
> program software instead of developing it, you can't just outsource the coding
> part to India... :P)
Heh. I'll keep that in mind.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
