[PD-dev] why using vanilla better than extended; was :Re: pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]

cyrille henry cyrille.henry at la-kitchen.fr
Mon Feb 23 01:50:17 CET 2009

João Pais a écrit :

> is there anyone out there that really sticks to pd-van, and doesn't use  
> any externals, for other purposes than low-level educational ones?].
i do use only vanilla + Gem + my externals.
well, most of the time.
(by example chdh performance patch does also use canvas, moog~ and repeat (i'll remove the later when i'll have time))

i don't have anything against externals but there are different things that prevent me using lot's of them :
(i use all the external i need. i just don't really need lot's of them)

-for stability : i don't wish to use code that i don't fully trust, and i don't have time to personally test everything deeply.
-for simplicity : i think it's more simple to use a limited set of object, than choosing from about 2000 of them.
-for compatibility : i need to have my patch running on lot's of different computer, using different version of pd, different OS. since pd-extended is not yet the standard pd distribution for anyone, i have to use the minimal set of external. i.e : almost none. (see RJDJ by example)
-for conservation : in 50 years, it will certainly be easier to use a pd patch than a pd-extended patch. at least, it will not be harder. This was true for the last few years since pd extended was not mature until recently.
-for new feature : pd-extended is 1 or 2 version late, and new pd feature are usually really nice. by example i deeply use the new pd~ object for a project i'm working on. i don't really know when pd-extended will be in version 0.42.
-to prevent incompatibility : pd extended does not use transparent object and this does break some of my old patch (when using a canvas and symbol to create some visual feedback). moreover, it's visually ugly.
-for fun: most externals are useless and can be replaced by abstraction. although it's fun not to use external, it also more elegant.

this is what i was thinking for the last 5 year. i don't say that this will never change. 
anyway, i really appreciate the work made on pd-extended, but it is not ready for me yet. 
i know that my position is a bit extreme, but i don't really have problem with it.


More information about the Pd-dev mailing list