[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 01:14:53 CET 2009

I don't think that Pd-extended is for everyone, that's fine by me.  I  
think its good to have many distros of Pd+libs.  But what I think is  
essential is that we have a common library format so that patches made  
in one distro can be compatible in others.  Saying that you tailor  
your environment to your patches is not a solution.   Then your  
patches will only work in your custom setups.

That is why I think we need to discuss the library format and come up  
with a format that works for everyone.  I posted the idea for a common  
library format somewhere in this thread.   This is an idea that has  
been formed from the contributions of a number of people, and I think  
it covers all the concerns that I know of.  Please take a look and  
comment on it, so we can start coding it and lay this argument to  
rest :D


On Feb 23, 2009, at 6:16 PM, cyrille henry wrote:

> João Pais a écrit :
>>>> -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.
>>> Yes, there is definitely some crappy code included in Pd- 
>>> extended.   That's why I think we should stop including anything  
>>> but the most stable  libraries, and instead make it very easy for  
>>> people to make and install  libraries.  But one nice thing about  
>>> using libdirs is that, if you don't  use the crappy code, it is  
>>> just a blob taking up disk space.  It is not  loaded at all,  
>>> therefore it won't affect your stability.
>> here here. even if the code gets loaded into memory, as long as  
>> there are  no nameclashing you shouldn't even notice it (except  
>> you're running an  installation on a low-end computer and each byte  
>> counts, ...)
> loading a patch when you have lot's of lib loaded should be slower.
> but why using pd-extended if you don't need all the lib?
>>>> -for simplicity : i think it's more simple to use a limited set  
>>>> of  object, than choosing from about 2000 of them.
>>> I agree simplicity is good, and there is a lot of redundancy in  
>>> Pd- extended.  The redundancy is mostly for backwards  
>>> compatibility.  Then  the other problem is that one person's  
>>> simple set of objects don't work  for someone else.  For example,  
>>> I don't think you ever use creb but for  others, that's  
>>> indispensible.
>> and I also think that the redundancy comes also from the fact that  
>> there  is no object list for pd-ext. no one has the time to search  
>> 2xxx objects,  so they just program their own.
> it's not very hard to look on the svn for a specific object name  
> before writing the same object wih the same name.
>>>> -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)
>>> If you don't use externals at all, then this is true.  If you do,  
>>> then  Pd-extended is the most compatible way to use externals.
>> is pd-ext not the standard version for many reasons more than it  
>> isn't  maintained by MP, and because it isn't as actual as pd-van?
> i just mean pd-extended is not used by anyone.
>> I don't know  about the compatibility issue - you say this because  
>> some systems have low  resources (like rjdj), or because pd-ext  
>> isn't stable in some systems? the  1st makes sense, naturally (also  
>> if you get a 10year old computer for an  installation, etc.)
> everybody use a different set of external. so when you share a  
> patch, you can have problem if someone does not load the lib you're  
> using.
> look at how many problem send on the pd list is solve via changing  
> pd lib loading preferences.
>>>> -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.
>>> If you use no externals at all, or you always include every  
>>> external/ abstraction you use within the project, then this could  
>>> be true.  AFAIK,  this is how Miller bundles his code in PDRP.
>>> If you use externals at all, then I disagree here quite strongly.   
>>> There  is no standard way to install or setup externals with Pd- 
>>> vanilla.  That  means in 50 years, people will have no idea how  
>>> you set up your  Pd-vanilla + externals.  Pd-extended will still  
>>> be just a package with  everything in the right place.
>> I think so as well, the builds are a solid package (if the code  
>> inside  works, like it does in many of the libs). anyway, this  
>> discussion (and  subsequent actions, if they happen) would be a  
>> good step to make pd-ext  even more mature. I would think that a  
>> small "tester group" to test  objects, or to alert developers for  
>> good testing + documentation + use of  proper formats (for  
>> documentation + pdpedia or whatever) would be a good  thing. I  
>> would be up to give some time for it (can't give much more than   
>> that, anyway).
>>>> -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.
>>> With new features come new bugs, unfortunately, like the editing  
>>> helper  and the pow~/override issue.  The latter could cause big  
>>> problems.  But  mostly the reason why there is a delay is because  
>>> there is only so much  I can do.
>> are there any users that could help HC with the task of putting pd- 
>> van and  pd-ext at the same level? I guess that the most mature  
>> result would be  that MP's code would go directly to pd-ext after  
>> being tested/released.
>>>> -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.
>> what do you mean visually ugly? the fonts, or something that can't  
>> be  adjusted?
> i just don't like the not transparent object.
> cyrille
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev


"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are  
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from  
scarcity."        -John Gilmore

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list