[PD-dev] abstractions

[patrice colet]

Hi,

Frank Barknecht a écrit :
>
> I think, Pd could benefit a lot by providing a default scripting
> language to write operations like [range] which are tediuos to do as
> an abstraction. Altough I'm not a fan of Tcl (and would prefer Lua),
> Tcl would be a natural choice as it's available anyway. Ideally the
> scripts would be saved within the patch, e.g. inside message boxes.
> Oh wait, that's toxy! Hm, ... but toxy has a horrible syntax, which I
> could never get around. But the general approach of it is a fantastic
> idea.
>
>   
  Having a default scripting language is certainly the best thing that 
could happen to puredata, I think.
 We wouldn't have to deal anymore with externals and get headaches for 
manipulating strings, and (maybe) for custumizing our own widgets 
without having to touch pd.tk or compiling.
 The problem of toxy horrible synthax doesn't come from toxy but like 
almost everyone know, from puredata's 'dropped keycodes', so it would be 
the same with any other language wrapper that allow to store the code 
into the patch (just try to launch a sed command line with [shell] to 
have an idea...)

à plus


> The advantages of a scripted Pd classes are: For certain tasks,
> especially those involving lots of repetition, patching is too much
> work. And as pd-extended shows, if you pack each and every external
> and abstraction into the pd-distribution, you either have to deal with
> ugly long names or live with namespace pollution. 
>
> Btw.: That's why today I tend to avoid installing lots of externals
> and rather copy them to a project's folder when needed. Apart from
> extensions that provide special functionality like Gem, msd, OSC or
> iemfilters, I don't use "convenience collections" like maxlib anymore
> - expect my own of course. Joao would probably call me a hardcore
> user. ;)
>
> Ciao
>