Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think this came up a number of times in the past. I remember getting
> brutalized for suggesting CIL ;-)

.... and rightly so ;)

Post a reply to this message

Thanks. This is the best and most concise explanation of the basic 
tenets of OOP that
I have read. Much better, for instance, than that in "OOP for Dummies".
clipka wrote:





>> This seems to be true, where would I find some *real* OOP to look at?
> 
> I don't know whether there exists such a thing as "real OOP to look at".
> Whatever code you look at, if you're not familiar with the language you'll
> probably see more of the language's peculiaritis than you'll see of the
> programmer's original thoughts.

Perhaps I should have said where could I find some simple examples of 
good OOP
programming. Any that would be very useful to me might be hard to find. 
I have some
Python code for producing a Windows GUI "wrapper" around old Fortran 
code. The results
are quite impressive. It's likely that this code would be as good 
example as I can find --
though it's not especially simple.
> 
> Academic languages are peculiar anyway; and non-academic languages tend to
> accumulate traits over time that are peculiar because the original language
> didn't have them.
> 
  The current POV-Ray SDL is so
> well-suited to its basic task that it would be imprudent to go very far from
> that, as far as the effective syntax is concerned.
Amen!


:) David

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity (but you keep saying things like this, so I have 
>> to ask), where have you seen OOP programming?
>>
> 
> Your point is well taken. I have *never* seen OOP *programming*.

<snip>

> To actually see OOP "programming", I suppose I would have to see some 
> one actually coding in OOP.

I don't think you understood my point.  I'm not talking about watching 
someone as they write code.  I'm talking about the source code itself.

What source code have you seen that scared you so badly away from OOP?

My guess (and it's just a hunch at this point), is that the OOP itself 
isn't what scared you, but rather the complexity of the program.  If 
this is the case, then you're almost certainly guaranteed that the 
program would have looked *worse* if it weren't OO.

Something that people don't tend to believe: programming is *hard*.  It 
is *not* a simple matter to sit down with a sheet of requirements, and 
pound out the class (though having a properly written spec makes it 
easier).  And, believe it or not, most programmers' jobs could *not* be 
done by a bunch of monkeys.

It's not for everyone, and some people are more suited to using the 
programs they have than writing new ones.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> 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

I know, but I find it hard to pass up an opportunity for a good pun :)

-- 
Chambers

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)

In other words, he saves money by not creating *extra* work that his 
employers have to pay for.

Way to go Darren, you deserve a raise! :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I wonder if it would it be possible for POV to expose its core functions 
> in a standard way (eg in a dll for windows), and then you can access 
> them from any programming language you like.

I propose Ook!

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
> 
>>> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?
>> It would be too complex to be usable by ordinary folk (i.e. me).
> 
>   And exactly how do you know this?
> 

OOP is the first three letters of oops!

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> Something that people don't tend to believe: programming is *hard*.  It 
> is *not* a simple matter to sit down with a sheet of requirements, and 
> pound out the class (though having a properly written spec makes it 
> easier).  And, believe it or not, most programmers' jobs could *not* be 
> done by a bunch of monkeys.
> 

I drafted a rather longer reply to this, but thought better of it. I'll 
say only this
programming is *not* hard, but it cane be made hard.

David

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> > I wonder if it would it be possible for POV to expose its core functions
> > in a standard way (eg in a dll for windows), and then you can access
> > them from any programming language you like.
>
> I propose Ook!

Stupid monkey.

(*hands over banana*)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:48:03 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
>> > I wonder if it would it be possible for POV to expose its core functions
>> > in a standard way (eg in a dll for windows), and then you can access
>> > them from any programming language you like.
>>
>> I propose Ook!
>
>Stupid monkey.
>
>(*hands over banana*)
>
>

Ooo! Big trouble when the librarian gets you :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message