Over the evening and as I pounded out the calories on the treadmill this early morning, I pondered this statement from Robert yesterday:
One man's "hiding" is another man's "encapsulation" in a OO programming.
... and came in poised to write an expose on the virtues of hierarchical encapsulation and just where you draw the line so that object functionality can be easily understood by someone who holds less than a 3rd degree black belt in C++.
However, Robert disarmed me with this:
For teaching purpose I certainly have to conceed setting things up explictly is more effective, so it is probably a flaw in some of my code that it makes it awkard to take this approach rather than facilitiating it. I will me mindful of this when coding up further viewer codes, osgProducer::Viewer over the years has streadily gone overboard with way too much implicit functionality/relationships.
Robert, I think this is the absolute basis for most of our disagreements. You are, without doubt, the guru at using C++ in massively effective ways, and I've learned much from you over the years, by simply reading your code.
I am a teacher at heart, (and the first to admit that my C++ coding leaves much to be desired). But I understand Object Oriented Design ( a lot better than I think you give me credit for ) and my perspective is from one who would like to explain OSG to a much wider audience than it is reaching now, through the aid of Object descriptions and interactions.
-don
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
