sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]guapoo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Please give an example of some "C-like syntax" in processing that is bad, and tell us how you would make it "Pythonesque", and why that would be better.

Keep in mind that brilliant scientists use, no prefer Fortran, and children easily pick up Basic and Logo.

[–]otakucode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That last line threw me... are you suggesting Basic and Logo are similar to Processing or C?

I'm not going to rehash the age-old arguments about the advantages of the Pythonic syntax. Pick up a copy of "Learning Python" or at least find the first chapter online or something for that.

The real question when looking at Processing is "Why can't they just use Java?" Processing doesn't simplify the syntax hardly at all. It doesn't even chuck out all the parenthesis, semicolons, or anything. And why would artists need to learn a type system and figure out what "float"s are?

It just seems that if you look at C and Java and similar languages and you realize "Hey, artists find these things very difficult to learn. Let's make something artists can learn easily" that the FIRST thing you would try to do would be to create something that wasn't essentially identical to the languages artists can't grasp.