[PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
brbrofsvl at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 06:36:29 CET 2009
> Getting rid of cyclone's pow~ would break all of the patches that rely
> on cyclone's pow~, and would also make it harder to import Max/MSP
> patches. Removing it is not a solution.
Okay. But I don't see why something that is a rather obvious breach
of style should be allowed to bully the rest of the application. I
have never used Max/MSP, but it seems like its (and cyclone's) [pow~]
is really something more like an [exp~] with a changeable base.
In my view -- this is an open-source program which is more or less
guaranteed to evolve. If your patch breaks with a new version, use an
older version, or find and fix the problems in the patch. To me it is
a problem to avoid improvements to the language to maintain backward
compatibility at all costs, and much better to throw warnings --
"Warning: your patch might be broken: look for all instances of pow~.
Thank you." =o)
The best solution in any of these circumstances is the least worst
solution. As far as I can tell the least worst solution is the one
with the most patch-level control for the libraries. As a user I
would rather do the research to see which externals I needed than to
be forced into accepting one or the other, ESPECIALLY if vanilla
classes are overwritten -- this seems the most egregious to me.
Pd+libs and Pd-extended should support vanilla patching, since many
users insist upon vanilla only -- worrying about cyclone and allowing
vanilla to break seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse
with regard to backward compatibility. Pd is not Max/MSP. Should you
really have to import vanilla?
More information about the Pd-dev