[PD-dev] why using vanilla better than extended; was :Re: pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Mon Feb 23 12:38:03 CET 2009
Frank Barknecht wrote:
> cyrille henry hat gesagt: // cyrille henry wrote:
>> 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.
> I have a similar position. :)
> To me the problem of Pd-extended or the reason why I don't use it is
> because it is not only a collection of externals and abstractions, but
> it also bundles it with a modified, often out-of-date version of Pd
> into a big monolithic package.
i guess one of the main reasons for us (the iem) to not use pd-extended
is, that it is targeted at people without compilers, whereas we often
develop libraries for our projects.
(Pd-extended is severely limited in this respect, e.g. the 103MB disk
image on OSX comes without g_canvas.h)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Pd-dev