DSP Robotics Support

.

What about "functional" languages like Haskell?

.

MichaelBenjamin wrote:OOP is a shitty mindset, not bcs it is not beautiful.
OOP is shitty bcs is scales very badly down to cpus available on earth.

It's terms like these that make it literally impossible to have a conversation. I accept that you don't like OOP, now do us the favour and accept that
1) I like OOP
2) For anyone who wants to use Ruby in Flowstone a basic understanding of OOP is needed.

Just because you want to go back programming like I did in the early 80s:

MichaelBenjamin wrote:2. program for current cpus like an engineer should do it

doesn't mean it is the best way to do it.

Nothing you said over the last few posts makes any sense, and is not even factual. Unless you show me your sourcecode for the triple-A game you made completely in Assembler (that would be your 2) ), you shouldn't argue over the use of Ruby in Flowstone. It's in there, that'S a fact you can't change, it helps people doing things they can't do in green, that's a fact, it does so with a way easier approach than unreadable code like fsandps etc., that's a fact, and it is lightweight enough to do amazing things as many have proven here with schematics, that's a fact.

Do you even have Ruby in Flowstone? Or are you still in a 15 year old Synthmaker?

See how uncomfortable posts are to read, when they get as aggressive as yours? Maybe that helps you thinking twice before writing another meaningless moan about something that isn't even the topic here.

[Both personal opinion and to be taken as a strong moderator hint!..]

There is no need to describe OOP, nor any other technical concept that we discuss here, using language like "shitty mindset" (nor "gulags", "toxic", "bullshit", etc.)! Neither myself nor Spogg are very strict about the odd swear-word here and there, nor do we have any desire to stifle debate; and we do try to remember that not all of you are native English speakers. However, it should be pretty obvious how such wording might be taken as unnecessarily antagonistic.

OOP is is one coding paradigm amongst many, with advantages and disadvantages just like any other; that is all. Even professionals rarely get much choice about which they must use in practice, so need to understand them whatever their personal opinions of them might be.

As hobbyists, it may not always be clear to us why such paradigms arose, nor why they have become de-facto standards. In the case of OOP, the primary aim was that high-level abstractions would make it far easier and faster for large teams of coders to work on complex applications in a modular fashion; by coding to "interfaces" which do not require any prior knowledge of the specifics of implementations. It is certainly arguable that this hasn't been quite as successful as originally intended, but whatever marginal benefits have been found in practice have led to its widespread adoption. When working commercially, ease of sharing code and unit-testing are far more important considerations than they are for us amateur geeks who can spend as much time as we like theorising and indulging our perfectionism!

.

...

.

.

...