 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I really don't know the significance of the ".net" extension
> attached to a program name,
You don't really sound too qualified then to complain about the "needless
complexity" :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The whole idea of object-oriented programming is to make it *easier* to
>> write programs, especially compared to straightforward
>> imperative/structured
>> programming (as the SDL is currently).
>>
>
> That I cannot believe!!
Why not?
Did you ever try to write a macro in SDL to position or rotate an object
relative to the camera? You can't tell me that an OOP version wouldn't be
simpler!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (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.
No, it really is just the wrong group here.
If you look in the pov4.discussion.general group you will see that this
subject has already been discussed a lot, so please read through the posts
there, and if you feel you still have something to add then by all means
start a new thread. Nobody is going to flame you for a forbidden topic, I
assume that the developers want input from as many users as possible when
deciding what to do for POV4.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 2. What would be so bad about this being true?
> It would be too complex to be usable by ordinary folk (i.e. me).
I doubt it.
Just because Java is OOP done wrong, and C++ is a superset of an already
complicated language, doesn't mean that OOP is inherantly complex. It's
actually quite a food fit for scene description/construction/inspection.
>> 3. What the hell is EEP?
> Extremely Elite Programming (my coinage)
Yes, well, things like Java are *just a tad* over-hyped, yes... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>
> 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.
>
So it is so after all
:(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Did you ever try to write a macro in SDL to position or rotate an object
> relative to the camera? You can't tell me that an OOP version wouldn't
> be simpler!
>
>
Yes I have; maybe an OOP version would be simpler. The current SDL is
not without flaws.
Maybe OOP would magically fix them. I guess I'll find out if I continue
using Pov-Ray. As I
seem to be the lone objector to the Pov-Ray SDL going OOP, I don't
suppose there is much
point in my saying more. After all, I'm assured that such changes will
be for my own good.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> 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.
This is where I mutter something about functional programming being the
future, and everybody agrees with me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
