[PD-dev] why using vanilla better than extended; was :Re: pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
cyrille.henry at la-kitchen.fr
Tue Feb 24 17:49:18 CET 2009
Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
> 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.
we all agree here.
> 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.
yes, it is important.
but having patch compatible between 2 pd distro require more than just a common lib format.
> Saying that you tailor
> your environment to your patches is not a solution. Then your
> patches will only work in your custom setups.
yes. my aim is the opposite.
starting pd with -noprefs is not really "tailor your environment to your patches"
but trying to make your patch to work on all environment.
> 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
i miss this discussion.
so, having every file (.pd, .pd_linux .dll .pdlua and *-help.pd) in the same directory is ok for me.
The way you distribute a lib should also be related to the way you develop this lib on the svn.
so, should the svn be ordered on the same way : every files on the same dir?
except for sources and everything that need for compiling externals that could go on a src sub-folder?
and also a sub-folder for the examples (that are not help files)?
about the loading order :
is this mandatory to introduce incompatibility between vanilla and extended?
changing the loading order in pd-extended may break some patch. this is not a major problem for me since we all can adapt old patch to work with a new software version. But to have different order between vanilla and extended is not really nice.
> 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
>>> 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
>> 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.
>>> Pd-dev mailing list
>>> Pd-dev at iem.at
> "[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
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
More information about the Pd-dev