On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:12:18PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > >i don't claim that Gem is a good example. however, i also don't see how > >the data-flow vs control-flow is especially bad in Gem. > > As long as you pass a "gem" message around that is only a pointer to a > shared state that all objects modify, it's all explicit control-flow all > over the place. The contents of the "gem" messages doesn't matter at all, > and the only thing that matters is the order in which the messages are > sent. That's 100% controlflow and 0% dataflow.
It would be way cool if gem was truly dataflow, with the [cube] or another geometry source at the top of the stack and then geometry/colour/texture modifiers all the way down until a [render] object. Imagine doing audio style filtering on geometry streams. One can dream I guess. Best, Chris. PS This is not a criticism of Mark, IOhannes, Chris's work on Gem - it's a great library and I love using it! Thanks for all your hard work. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
