Dependence on Programming Experts

[Jim Ault]

Ahhh, I too like the concepts of object orientation.  Flash Actionscript
moves pretty far along this path.  Their advantage is that they have created
their own universe and all the objects are defined to work there.

Databases are also good candidates for object oriented approaches, but when
products come out that do this (Helix, Serious), they fail to deliver the
intricate power needed and fall by the wayside.

Compiling a program to work with a computer operating system is much
different, let alone more than one platform.  It is difficult to think that
you could take a trip from Seattle to Miami any time of the year in a Model
T.  The kit of 300 parts would not include disc brakes or climate control,
nor would it produce a car that could travel at 50-60 mph for hours.

Rev is more like a workshop with wonderful tools, some very powerful, some
primitive.  With this workshop you can build an amazing array of 'cars' or
buses or trailers or cabinets or furniture or refrigerators or fences or
even more power tools to build other tools and products.

Thus tools to build parts to build cars, but also tools to build tools to
build even more powerful tools to build planes and rockets.

One real world example is a web page designer who knows the craft, but
trying  using one of the hosting sites' template 'easy-to-build' tools.
Quite frustrating to have such limited options to satisfy the needs and
desires of a client.

I also know that I would not spend the hours trying to do what Scott Rossi
does with his cool stacks, and Richard Gaskin with his, and Chipp & Chris
with their products, and Sarah, Jacqueline, Ken, etc, etc.  Such complete
knowledge and experience is possible with Rev, but the years it would take
to get there!

So which areas would you build in as object oriented?

Jim Ault
Las Vegas

On 7/6/06 1:34 AM, "GregSmith" <brucegregory at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 
> Chipp:
> 
> Thank you for your many replies to my questions.  I'll try to take your word
> regarding your programming language recommendation, but I really don't yet
> understand why you or Rodney feel this way.  Object orientation has always
> made complete sense to me  -  the encapsulation of very small functions and
> their assembly into larger components.  Traditional programming describes a
> sequence of events, detail by detail instead of an assemblage of simple
> parts.  This seems counter-intuitive to me.  As I understand it, Transcript
> is not object oriented.  It may have syntax that resembles English, but the
> construction of systems is what I am aiming at and it seems natural to
> define a system in terms of itty bitty parts that combine together to make
> bigger and more complex things.  Think of the Model T car.  Pretty useful,
> but really not all that complex considering it is made up of merely 300
> fairly simple parts.  Looked at a part at a time, creating a Model T seems
> quite within practical limits.
> 
> Greg Smith