Hi Frank, it's my turn now to absolutely second what you said. gr~~~
Am 13.09.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Frank Barknecht: > Hallo, > Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote: > >> This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas >> I'd >> prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think >> the difference is something only computer scientists are interested >> in and Pd has a tradition of not always following the path of >> mainstream computer science anyway, because it's not a tool mainly >> targetting computer scientists but one targetting artists. I'd say,, >> reserve the term class for pd-dev. > > It occured to me that it may sound like I'd try to "dumb down" Pd for > artists, which is not my intention, so I'd like to clarify a bit: > > We're talking about what term to use in pdpedia for the descriptions > of the available building blocks for patches, mainly externals and > abstractions. When building patches, what users (scientists and > artists) deal with, are objects. The only thing you can do with a > class when building a patch is to make an instance of it: an object of > the class. > > So in the pdpedia context using the term "object" for the list of > building blocks in my view wouldn't be wrong at all. As "object" also > is the term that is generally used when talking about Pd patches > here--as in: "Just put an [osc~] object into your patch to make a sine > wave." Nobody says: "Instantiate the [osc~] class to make a sine > wave."--it is perfectly valid to use "object/symbol" on pdpedia. IMO > at least. > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
