[PD-dev] why using vanilla better than extended; was :Re: pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
cyrille henry
cyrille.henry at la-kitchen.fr
Wed Feb 25 11:01:15 CET 2009
Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:49 AM, cyrille henry wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, but we have to start somewhere.
>
>
>>> 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)?
>
> here is the proposal in question:
>
> http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2009-02/013009.html
this mail is only about pd-extended file organization.
i'll be happy to have a svn organization proposition.
or did i misunderstand things?
>
> If you are happy including any externals in the same folder, then do
> that, you don't need libraries. For me, I would like to be able to
> easily use externals that have been updated. Yes, fixing bugs can break
> patches, but that's hardly an argument to stop fixing bugs. Any change
> in code can break things, shall we just stop changing Pd at all? I
> think a better solution is to allow a patch to query Pd for the version,
> then include info about which version that patch was made with.
> Pd-extended has [version] for that purpose.
>
>> 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.
>
> The idea would be to change vanilla, then extended would inherit it.
i certainly miss some discussion here : does miller agree?
I
> also want to avoid a difference here.
cool
>I think changing the loading
> order won't change anything in how Pd-vanilla objects are loaded, it
> might change which objectclass gets loaded in Pd-extended, but that can
> be checked with a script.
>
> It could change how a patch behaves, but in a way that could happen
> switching between distros and installations too. Things are so messy
> now, I don't think it would be wise to keep it that way.
i don't see problem to change pd behaviors from 1 version to an other. but i whish pd and pd-extended to be easily compatible.
so, let's go!
Cyrille
>
> .hc
>
>>
>>
>> cyrille
>>
>>> .hc
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-dev mailing list
>>> Pd-dev at iem.at
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own
> government." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list