On Dec 13, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Chris McCormick wrote: > 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.
I think that GEM is dataflow-ish, but it is representing OpenGL render chains rather than the physical shapes they generate... .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
