On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Objectclasses in object-oriented languages like Java, etc. accept
many messages, but I think that Max is more like a functional
language than an object-oriented one, (but somewhere in between).
On average, Pd/Max are more functional-or-procedural than OOP, because
they tend to use OOP only as wrappers for indivual functions, decorated
with methods that mostly just set arguments in advance. However they still
offer the power to make bigger classes.
In Java, the tendency is to make big classes, plenty of methods. This is
in part influenced by the rule that each public class has to be in a
different file. People want to make a class worth the effort of having a
separate file, so they design in a way that each class does more (unless
they are paid by the number of files written!).
In some other languages, I may have a bunch of classes that are 5 lines
long, perhaps even 1 line each. I may even be creating one class per
iteration of a for-loop that processes a spec of a protocol or
file-format. The class concept is not pedestalised and thus it is a
concept that is more fluid, more integrated and less special.
I'm not saying I have the answer (yet? :) but this for me, thinking
about these kinds of things makes for a more intuitive and fluid
programming language.
Combinations of small objects are also good. (Java has also the problem of
requiring the chaining of too many small objects some time. It's difficult
to strike a balance between the two problems when your goal is to support
everything at once)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
