 |
Author |
Topic: Thoughts on processing (Read 718 times) |
|
Vair
|
Thoughts on processing
« on: Nov 22nd, 2004, 9:46am » |
|
I've been using processing for a couple of weeks now. I don't know why I avoided it so completely in the past. It probably had something to do with my aversion to Java applets - which, itself, probably has to do with me being a Director user.
Anyway, I love it. I loved the first few days of playing around with bitmaps, then checking out sonia and then beginning to explore the murkier Java stuff that lies beneath.
I'm interested in tools that will let me make things that interest me without having to invest two years of my life in to become adequate or have me spending all my time planning and setting up a project instead of jumping in and seeing where things will take me (what some people call programming from the bottom up).
What I like most is that I'm kind of learning Java as I go along and find something that p5 can't handle alone. I honestly don't think I can imagine a more perfect way to learn (though the sun documentation could be improved upon somewhat). If processing's ease of installation, documentation and syntax weren't as simple and inviting as they are, I really wouldn't have bothered.
I still have a loathing for applets. I might not get over that until I ditch the mac. For me, the real promise of p5 is in applications. When I can export an app from the IDE then I'll be choosing whether or not to work in Director or p5 when I want to start getting creative of the computer. I hope it gets here soon.
Aside from that, there are two things that I would like to see. One is some modification of the language so that it works a little less like Java and a little more like a scripting language such as JavaScript (when working in static and continuous modes). That would mean looser typing, support for different types in the same array, associative arrays, etc. As creative types we should be able to throw data around. The hardest problems I've faced so far have been to do with grouping related data of varying types.
The second thing is a section of documentation on Java from a processing perspective, easing the transition between the two - like I said before, the Java documentation is not great reading material and it really only needs a reasonable push start to begin to incorporate bits of Java into p5 code. What would be helpful is a quick idea of what will work and what won't work, and finally tips on how to take what you've learned in p5 and start working on straight Java.
A few random thoughts there 
|
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: Thoughts on processing
« Reply #1 on: Nov 23rd, 2004, 4:37pm » |
|
interesting.. glad it's working well for you.
a few quick notes in response to the things you brought up:
export to application support is on its way, there's info elsewhere on this board for how to package your stuff up now, but it'll be easier soon.
re: strong vs. weak typing.. the reason we stuck with strong typing is that it makes an *enormous* difference in execution speed. if we had weak typing, the language would be as slow as actionscript or worse. i think weak typing would be nice, and i agree with the point about throwing data around, but it's not viable to do efficiently.
and re: java from a processing perspective, that's a great idea. mostly we've had people just helping each other out here on the board, but you're probably right that it would be nice to have some real docs. maybe someone who's made the jump will have some good ideas on what to include or be motivated to put something together.
|
|
|
|
|
TomC
|
Re: Thoughts on processing
« Reply #2 on: Nov 23rd, 2004, 4:51pm » |
|
on Nov 23rd, 2004, 4:37pm, fry wrote:
and re: java from a processing perspective, that's a great idea. mostly we've had people just helping each other out here on the board, but you're probably right that it would be nice to have some real docs. maybe someone who's made the jump will have some good ideas on what to include or be motivated to put something together. |
|
*raises hand*
As someone who often chimes in on integrating Java classes and Processing (and who's been bitten by 1.4 vs 1.3 vs 1.1 problems too) I'd be happy to start this off, or take a "technical editor" type role if somebody else is more enthusiastic.
I think String, Vector and Hashtable keep coming up. As well as various issues with declaration, instantiation, classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc. (Some of the issues are just newbie issues best kept on the board, but some of them could do with a Processing-centric explanation, especially the OO stuff since unlike Java the Processing API doesn't exactly lead by example  )
|
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: Thoughts on processing
« Reply #3 on: Nov 23rd, 2004, 9:51pm » |
|
on Nov 23rd, 2004, 4:51pm, TomC wrote:*raises hand*
As someone who often chimes in on integrating Java classes and Processing (and who's been bitten by 1.4 vs 1.3 vs 1.1 problems too) I'd be happy to start this off, or take a "technical editor" type role if somebody else is more enthusiastic.
I think String, Vector and Hashtable keep coming up. As well as various issues with declaration, instantiation, classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc. (Some of the issues are just newbie issues best kept on the board, but some of them could do with a Processing-centric explanation, especially the OO stuff since unlike Java the Processing API doesn't exactly lead by example )
|
|
that would be great.. i think the "newbie issues" are quite legitimate too, since processing is intended as a newbie-oriented language. i agree on the Hashtable, Vector, String issues, and 1.1/1.3 stuff is important too.
and fwiw (i think TomC you know this, but for the record..) the processing api is intentionally not OO where it need not be, for sake of simplicity, speed, and delaying until later the introduction of the hairier issues of class instantiation and whatnot that you describe. someday we'll prolly have a more OO library that people can graduate to that's built on top, but that's yet another project
|
|
|
|
|
TomC
|
Re: Thoughts on processing
« Reply #4 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 9:37am » |
|
I agree. What I call 'newbie issues' are the ones so random you couldn't actually pre-empt them. If things are being asked regularly -no matter how simple - there's no reason a tutorial shouldn't cover them.
I'm in the process of drafting a 'how do I do X in Java' type FAQ, of which some parts will be spun off into longer tutorials. I might ask for volunteers for certain bits later.
|
|
|
|
|
granster
|
Re: Thoughts on processing
« Reply #5 on: Nov 29th, 2004, 5:54pm » |
|
Thoughts from a really old "newbie".
I was born in 1947. A friend of mine a year or two younger that me used to call himself "the world's oldest programmer". I objected because I learned to program Fortran with punch cards where you would wait two days to see if your program ran right. I went into science teaching but learned Cobol, Basic and Assembly Language and quit teaching in the seventies to be a computer programmer. After several years went back to teaching but this time teaching computer classes. I teach K to 8th Grade. I teach some HTML to 7th and 8th Graders. In Processing I have finally found a modern computer language I can use and will be using it a lot. I also think I can have my more advanced students using it.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 29th, 2004, 5:56pm by granster » |
|
Live long and prosper
|
|
|
|
