[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:
> Hallo,
> 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 it also bundles it with a modified, often out-of-date version of Pd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...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20090223/054575ac/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list