"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