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

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Tue Feb 24 01:07:40 CET 2009

On Feb 23, 2009, at 6:38 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> 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 it also bundles it with a modified, often out-of-date version of Pd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)

It would be easy enough to add the headers to the package, feel free  
to do so.  I just assumed that people use the code from SVN since I  
think that's easier.



The arc of history bends towards justice.     - Dr. Martin Luther  
King, Jr.

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list