[PD-dev] list math

[B. Bogart]

cyrille henry wrote:

> i don't fear redondancy.

Hi Cyrille,

Perhaps you don't but anyone who is learning PD should! Without
consitancy and a lack of redundancy learning PD becomes a much more
complex and confusing proposition.

Wherever possible objects with the same functionality should be unified.

Otherwise things tend towards a state where the dominant (first written)
object gets priority in patches and in workshops. Then the users miss
the second object, that might be better, and then we end up with
different camps of users using different versions of "functionally" the
same object, and incompatible patches.

Its my personal opinion that one should never write an object that
overlaps more than 60% of the functionality of an already existing
object. One should "fix" the existing object to cover the 40% the new
object would allow.

If you really want to write your own redundant objects then please don't
bother releasing them. It just adds to the chaotic fuzz and it would
serve the community much better to integrate rather than "fork" even if
its hard and takes longer.

Just an opinion as a PD instructor.

.b.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20060212/5fa72924/attachment.pgp>