Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, marius schebella wrote: > >> eventually, I think users should not have to bother with namespaces at >> all. I still consider namespace declarations in a visual dataflow >> programming tool to be a hack. > > So, why is it that it is a hack in the context of a visual dataflow > programming language
because I think the concept of a visual dataflow programming language should be to provide a developer environment to people who don't necessarily have a programming background. think of html code, imagine you have to declare every h1, a, bold, ul... tag, before you can use it. as a pd user I really don't want to go into that level of complexity. > and, I presume that you mean that non-visual and/or > non-dataflow programming languages are somehow different? most text based libraries either come with a fixed set of libraries or ship the library with the code, or ship a binary. as a pd programmer I only want to ship patches and abstractions. (and content like pics etc....). > I'd say that declarations are annoying in any language, and > fully-qualified names are annoying in any language, but with some > languages and editors it's easier to handle it than in some others, and > in some it annoys more than in others. I am sure this would be less of a problem, if the current setup (pd version, library version, startup settings) would just automatically be added to every patch. although... nah, maybe this is not a good solution. > Do you mean namespace declarations in particular, or namespaces in > general including full-qualified names, or do you just mean the latter, > or just long names in general? namespaces in particular with pd. not in general. cheers, marius. _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
