<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Dan Wilcox <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danomatika@gmail.com" target="_blank">danomatika@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class=""><br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>I consider that a sad thing. At least with Pd-extended, it was largely Pd-vanilla + externals.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think it needs to be sad. Yes, pd-extended is pd-vanilla + externals + most limitations of the vanilla. How does that help you in your mission to move forward?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>That said, I would love to entertain the thought of co-developing libpd but I think that is currently bogged down by the same predicaments that pd-extended and any other non-vanilla implementations have to deal with, which is whether you keep the backwards compatibility or move forward as fast as you can at the expense of the compatibility.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Which is why I bring up the idea that we find some firmer ground in the bog and reach a compromise instead of forking galore. If fragmentation is a good thing, then there really isn't much of a community, simply a few islands rehashing the same things on a roughly a 5 year cycle. I'm sure you'll keep PD-L2ork going and it won't go the way of DD, but again there should be a way to have our cake and eat it too. I don't see the harm in trying.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, I'd like to point that, "bogged down" or not, libpd has IMO sparked the most life into Pure Data over the last few years by bringing lots of new people in who want to patch for phones and apps embedding libpd. Alot of those people are Max users ... :D I personally don't like the idea of us working on libpd when you take off with Pd-L20rk and we might reach a point where we'd want a libpd-L2ork. Would be nice to have both ...</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A lot of things would be nice but that is not the reality of the current situation. I think backwards compatibility is even less relevant to libpd when it is embedded in ways that are completely transparent to users, but I guess I digress, so I'll shut up.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>If the reality is as you say, then I'm not really interested in spending my time hacking on our little island.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And the only thing I can say at this point is that I respect that and to thank you for your genuine effort at moving the community forward.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>