[PD] PDDP meeting?
matju at artengine.ca
Sat May 6 20:37:58 CEST 2006
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> well, especially being an artistic tool, it shouldn't require the user
> to learn 1001 workarounds for trivial problems,
right, and keeping some features underdeveloped on the grounds that Pd
isn't supposed to be a programming language, just fuels the need for
workarounds, and it ends up that artists have to figure out the same
workarounds as when a programmer is confronted to underdeveloped aspects
of a programming language... only that the programmer is better trained at
figuring out workarounds.
> nor should the user have to worry about obscure message vs. list
> problems ...
This is a different problem because messages and lists can't be unified
without making another problem appear elsewhere. If every message is seen
as a list then there is no way left to tell an object to do something
special because all possible messages get already seen as data. I've
already explained this in great detail on pd-list and/or pd-dev. Think of
the "set" method for example.
So I think that in the message-vs-list case, if there are obscure
problems, they should be transformed into clear problems by teaching them
to every pd user.
There are many other things that could be made simpler without introducing
the same amount of new problems (but not all of them can be made so
without breaking compatibility).
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
More information about the Pd-list