[PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
reduzierer at yahoo.de
Tue Feb 17 08:37:04 CET 2009
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 00:36 -0500, Matt Barber wrote:
> > 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?
yo.. i very much agree with you. isn't it the wrong approach to use so
many tricks and kludges just to keep backwards compatibility? isn't that
just a too expensive goal?
i mean, there have been so many discussions about how to load libraries,
extend namespaces and such and then there is much not working yet,
respectively there are still a lot of incompatibilies between
pd-extended and pd vanilla, is it wise to introduce _now_ such a
feature? for me it is clearly another step away from a more consistent
pd world. and i am a bit confused to see, that this is done
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
More information about the Pd-dev