David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Do you really think a new programming paradigm would be developed and
> > get widespread if it was *harder* to use than older, ascetic imperative
> > approaches?
> > 
> Yes, (though I have no idea what  "ascetic imperative approaches" means) 
> such things have
>   happened more than once!

  Yeah, sure. I'm now convinced that OOP became so widespread regardless
of being significantly harder than imperative programming.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-7-2009 23:37, David H. Burns wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> (BTW, shame on you - this topic's off topic here... :P)
>>
>>
> 
> (Laugh) I love it! What can be off-topic to off-topic?  What you mean, I 
> think, is that
> this topic is forbidden! Or maybe simply unwanted.
> 
> So I'll apologize and go do something more useful.
> 
> :) Does my smile work? No need to answer that. I'll read my post.

That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I've looked at enough OOP programs. Pov-Ray's current scripting language
>   is easy to use once you learn the syntax. All that the introduction of
> OOP would do
> is to make it more difficult and time consuming to write a workable
> script.

An "OOP-enabled" language need not necessarily look like C++, Java or C#, if
that's what deters you.


> It matters
> little to me if the Pov-Ray source is written in OOP, though I think it
> would be a step
>   backwards or maybe side ways. (In fact it will probably become
> necessary for the source
> code to be written in OOP at least until the fad dies.)

POV-Ray 3.7 *is* already being written using OOP - not because we'd be living in
times of an OO hype, but because it *does* simplify both the development and - a
very important point in this respect - maintenance. As a professional software
developer I'm speaking out of experience here.

Once you've embraced the OO paradigms, you'll no longer wonder whether it's a
step back or sideways - you'll know that it's a step forward.


> What I don't want to see is the scripting language OOPified! As I said
> it already uses "object" with "data
>   members" and "methods", but it doesn't require the complex and (to my
> mind) arcane OOP structure
> and "philosophy".

Granted, some people can really blurp about it.

But if you already see "objects" and "data members" and "methods" in the SDL,
then there isn't much complexity to be added that you haven't seen yet - except
that an SDL with native OOP support would allow to define custom objects, to be
used in just the same way as POV-Ray's built-in primitives.

Also, the blurp can sometimes help to define the language in such a way that it
can be implemented with very compact code. Though I agree that it may be wise
not to force all the blurp that helped during development onto the casual
users.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> > >   Do you really think a new programming paradigm would be developed and
> > > get widespread if it was *harder* to use than older, ascetic imperative
> > > approaches?
> > >
> > Yes, (though I have no idea what  "ascetic imperative approaches" means)
> > such things have
> >   happened more than once!
>
>   Yeah, sure. I'm now convinced that OOP became so widespread regardless
> of being significantly harder than imperative programming.

Hm - just as a side note here: I thouht *you* were trying to convince *David*?
Just pointing out that his objection against your point makes a poor argument
in favor of his point... that's a rather weak point in itself.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> Did you know that you can program OOP with functional or imperative languages?

And conversely, as one of my programming students once said to me in the 
early days of OO, "you can make an OO program look a lot like a 
traditional program"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Yeah, sure. I'm now convinced that OOP became so widespread regardless
> of being significantly harder than imperative programming.
> 
:)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.

Thanks. Did you see it? I did when I read my own post. I don't think it 
shows up in the text in
my "sent" file. These matters get complicated.
:) (smiley ?)

David

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> > It might be too complex for ordinary folk to make use of its *full power*, but
> > simply coding a scene should be no tad more difficult than it is ATM.
> >
> That could be true, but I'm skeptical. The "full power" users would
> dominate and the
> rest of us would be sidelined, as has happen in programming in general.

I'm actually quite sure that something like this will happen - except that I'm
more inclined to think that instead of sidelining "OOP retards" (if I may use
such an expression :)) it will instead introduce OOP concepts to them -
provided they are willing, which I think is the major problem at least in your
case. Nobody will ever convince you of the benefits of OOP if you refuse to
give it a try; you won't see its advantages just from reading tutorials and
other people's code.


> :) Does this work?

Does.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

>> That could be true, but I'm skeptical. The "full power" users would
>> dominate and the
>> rest of us would be sidelined, as has happen in programming in general.
> 
> I'm actually quite sure that something like this will happen - 

So am I! More convinced than ever by this discussion!
except that I'm
> more inclined to think that instead of sidelining "OOP retards" (if I may use
> such an expression :)) it will instead introduce OOP concepts to them -
> provided they are willing, which I think is the major problem at least in your
> case. Nobody will ever convince you of the benefits of OOP if you refuse to
> give it a try; you won't see its advantages just from reading tutorials and
> other people's code.

You will pardon me if I resent being forced into something even if it is 
"for my own good".
Those with power, especially those with illegitimate power are always 
forcing someone to do
something "for their own good". So you would take control of a useful 
tool and twist it into
an instrument to force us "retards" into accepting your philosophy!

You have already branded me off topic. So let's leave it at that.

(Frowny)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> 
> (Laugh) I love it! What can be off-topic to off-topic?  What you mean, I
> think, is that
> this topic is forbidden! Or maybe simply unwanted.
> 

On-topic. Your conversation is clearly about Pov-RAY, so it would
naturally fit onto the on-topic groups better than to shit-chatting
off-topic group :-).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message