[PD-dev] stripping down Pd-extended's default libs

marius schebella marius.schebella at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 23:54:15 CET 2009

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, marius schebella wrote:
>> eventually, I think users should not have to bother with namespaces at 
>> all. I still consider namespace declarations in a visual dataflow 
>> programming tool to be a hack.
> So, why is it that it is a hack in the context of a visual dataflow 
> programming language 

because I think the concept of a visual dataflow programming language 
should be to provide a developer environment to people who don't 
necessarily have a programming background. think of html code, imagine 
you have to declare every h1, a, bold, ul... tag, before you can use it. 
as a pd user I really don't want to go into that level of complexity.

> and, I presume that you mean that non-visual and/or 
> non-dataflow programming languages are somehow different?

most text based libraries either come with a fixed set of libraries or 
ship the library with the code, or ship a binary. as a pd programmer I 
only want to ship patches and abstractions. (and content like pics etc....).

> I'd say that declarations are annoying in any language, and 
> fully-qualified names are annoying in any language, but with some 
> languages and editors it's easier to handle it than in some others, and 
> in some it annoys more than in others.

I am sure this would be less of a problem, if the current setup (pd 
version, library version, startup settings) would just automatically be 
added to every patch. although... nah, maybe this is not a good solution.

> Do you mean namespace declarations in particular, or namespaces in 
> general including full-qualified names, or do you just mean the latter, 
> or just long names in general?

namespaces in particular with pd. not in general.


More information about the Pd-dev mailing list