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

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

First off, sorry for the choice of words; "OOP-retards" was intended to be more
sort of affectionate than anything else, but admittedly ill-suited for this
purpose. I do apologize.

That said, I'm not sure whom you are referring to here with "those with power"
in general, and "those with illegitimate power" in particular. Furthermore, I
have no intention to "take control of a useful tool and twist it into an
instrument to force" anyone into accepting my "philosophy", neither personally
nor otherwise.

Hear yourself talking - as if there was a sinister conspiracy to enforce OOP
onto people, involving some kind of abominable inhumane brainwashing - and as
if I personally was one of the key figures in this plot.

Yes, I personally do advocate going for strong OOP-support with POV-Ray 4 SDL. I
do so as a POV-Ray user, and I do so as a contributing developer.

Yes, I did present a serious proposal for a new, OOP-enabled SDL in the povray 4
newsgroup some months ago.

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.

However, this is all still far from being decided; and all I was saying here and
now is, *if* the POV-Ray 4 language does go OOP, (1) I guess it will not be as
dramatically incomprehensible to non-OOP people as you seem to expect, (2) I
guess it will be of benefit for, and readily embraced by, the vast majority of
the users, (3) I guess for people who have no OOP experience but the desire to
learn the concepts it will provide a good opportunity to get into it in an easy
fashion, and (4) as for people categorically resenting any OOP exposure,
personally I'd accept the price of them turning their back on POV-Ray, as sad
as that loss would be.


And I'm also saying, try OOP for yourself, *then* judge. Give the concept a
chance before boldly declaring that it is of the devil.

Turning your own argument around, why should a small, radically anti-OOP group
of people (I currently know of exactly *one*), who don't seem to know from own
experience what they're really talking about, impose their categorically
anti-OOP philosophy unto a significantly greater number of users who would
readily embrace OOP out of good experience or an open mindset (I know for sure
of at least a handful to be decidedly pro-OOP, and would expect a poll to turn
up many, many more), forcing them to use a language particularly ill-suited for
their favorite way of programming?

You see, that argument of yours works great both ways round; and at the bottom
line, I'm more than willing to make myself a spokesman of (a) the majority, (b)
people whose arguments are based on personal experience, (c) those with the less
radical mindset, and (d) the solution that would allow both sides to code the
way they personally prefer. *All* these vectors currently seem to point towards
adding OOP-support to the SDL, with only the resentments of what currently
appears to be a radical and very small minority pointing in the opposite
direction.


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

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough that was a pure pun.

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> Why do you associate OOP with .Net?
> 
> Needless complexity.

 From this, and your other posts, I'm going to assume that you don't 
actually know anything about either OOP or .Net.

OOP does NOT introduce needless complexity; rather, it is a series of 
methodologies that help you manage complexity.  For this reason, the 
most likely place you'll see OOP avoided is in small, simple projects, 
while large (and complex) projects will insist on utilizing OOP 
(otherwise they would be unmanageable).

.Net encompasses a whole series of technologies from Microsoft, one of 
the most prominent being an interpreted bytecode known as CLR (common 
language run-time).  The various languages (such as C# .Net, VB .Net, et 
al) are compiled into this bytecode rather than machine language, which 
is then run by an interpreter.  This is similar to Java, although it is 
not platform independent (there is a platform independent open source 
version, called Mono, which is able to execute many .Net applications).

Along with this bytecode language, comes a large library of functions 
and routines that are accessible from any .Net language.

There are other technologies and features, of course, mostly aimed at 
interoperability of various system components (for instance, LINQ, which 
allows SQL-type queries from languages such as C# and VB).

In all, .Net as a collection of tools allows people to focus on the 
parts of their programs that are truly unique, rather than reinventing 
the wheel with every application.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   You can't. Why? Because the current SDL is an archaic pile of kludges, one
> on top of another. It's limited, inflexible and hard to use for anything
> more complicated than simple while-looping.

Even while-looping is dangerous for new users of SDL ;)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message