<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think you got my intentions/feelings the best. It's not a "complex" patch because I'm such a crafty guy and want to show off, it's a complex patch because it's a mature tool with many features (in it's own small field).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Ah, I wouldn't automatically know that. It tends to be more subtle than that. The patches I use to show off, can also be patches that I use for teaching, or as starting points for making more complex patches, or as many-featured tools, ... sometimes all four in the same day. I also feel that the strongest incentives are when there are multiple goals that can be achieved with one piece of work. The meaning of "complex" is quite complex by itself.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>true. with complex I think I meant "too intrincated to be worth spending your time with". as one thing builds on top of the other, and even now for me isn't that easy to change some of the "low-level" operations.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
About the "generous sharing spirit", as I said, the patch is (for almost a year now) free to download in my Pd page for everyone. The patch has already reached a mature state, maybe a 0.9 version,<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
What I found out about version numbers is that 0.9 is as meaningful as 9.0. That is, expectations about version numbers are so radically different from context to context. If you think Pd 0.43 is going to be quite more featureful than Pd 0.42, you can't apply that to your general impression of a 0.9 version or vice-versa. I mean, one think I learned about computers, is that out-of-context version numbers are a LOT LESS informative than they look like and than what people think they are.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>with 0.9 or 1 I mean a version which has enough in it, that can be considered complete in itself, and covers most general uses. of course it's subjective, it's more a goal description as a quality acessment.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
with a nice interface (which Tcl/Tk can't do),<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Tcl/Tk has been used for making nice interfaces of commercial apps throughout the nineties. You didn't see them because most of them were industrial. But nowadays, there are people who are using cool apps and have no idea that there's Tcl/Tk inside, and often it's because when it looks cool, it doesn't look like it's really Tcl/Tk anymore.<br>
<br>
And finally, Pd-vanilla insists on supporting Tcl/Tk versions of ten years ago, and on not supporting Tcl/Tk versions of now, and only uses them with the default look, and the default look doesn't look like 2010.<br>
<br>
So, I say, though there are lots of wrong things about Tcl/Tk, there are also lots of things said about Tcl/Tk that are wrong.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>ah, only went to their website now, that's true, Pd's gui looks like it's still the same as in the original Max time at ircam. that's a pity, because the gui and roughness of the display is something that deters many people from joining in - or just thinking that the program is as bad as it looks.</div>
</div>