[PD-dev] pbank in build/src (aka "flatspace")

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Thu Feb 26 20:32:04 CET 2009

On Feb 26, 2009, at 11:22 AM, João Pais wrote:

>> Basically, organization of the libs could not really be any /worse/
>> than it is now (e.g. I'm constantly checking ggee, hcs, moonlib and
>> zexy to find various OS and filesystem externals I need), so I'm
>> basically proposing the same thing you are, but approached as  
>> follows:
>> * Lazy consensus on a directory structure (I think we were already
>> making very nice progress on that in the "Proposals for object
>> categories" thread before it went off track : ) )
> I can start organising the info in a wiki page later in the day. I  
> guess this is point where we all agreed, we should try to move in  
> the direction of a structured pd-ext?

I see what you mean now, so like a "standard lib" or JDK for Pd.   
Sounds like a good idea.  I think it makes sense to start organizing  
this stuff now, but I am guessing it will have to be finalized at the  
PdCon in Sao Paulo. This kind of thing is vastly easier to do it  
person than via email.  I am sure was can also do audio/video chat and  
even streaming and IRC for this meeting to include people that are not  

There is already a wiki page with some info that you can build upon:



>> * Creation of a branch of SVN with the directory structure in place
>> * Everyone works together to shuffle the many libs into the new  
>> structure
>> * We each claim a domain we'd like to maintain
>> * And then, finally, the maintainer (with help from consenting
>> developers where necessary) begin to rewrite the objects in that
>> category to have a consistent interface.
> is the consistent interface really necessary? there was already some  
> discussion about the layout for the pddp project (am I right?),  
> maybe elements from there could be taken?
> or maybe it's enough to provide a general template with guidelines  
> to be followed, in case the developer wants the objects to become  
> part of pd-ext? f.e., I have a consistent approach to the  
> documentation of my abstractions - of course I can use another  
> graphical template, but that might open lots of unecessary  
> discussions: "why these colors", "why this layout", "why so many  
> graphics and not only text", .....
> But I think that in general it should be stressed that objects  
> should be stable and properly documented.
>> And of course this does not need to be a mandate - if a developer
>> would rather keep all his/her stuff together, that's fine.  And,  
>> there
>> will always be exceptions like rtc-lib or sigpack that shouldn't
>> really be split up.
> shouldn't they really? depends on what you're talking about - rtc,  
> vasp, etc. are very cohese libs, that anyway don't go much outside  
> their domains - their developers even made that separation clear, by  
> putting other externals available elsewhere. they could easily go  
> to /control/rtc or /control/array/vasp or etc. But for not so tight  
> lib-packages, is it that bad to separate objects, as long as they're  
> all available on path?
>> But, on the other side, I'm assuming there are many developers that
>> would be more than happy to move their code into common categories -
>> at the very least including myself, João and Cyrille, and only  
>> haven't
>> done so because the structure did not exist.  And personally I'd be
>> just as willing to adapt the interfaces of my abstractions to a
>> category-defined standard, but once again, none exists now to adapt
>> to.
> I have no problem in structuring my abstractions (I can't code), but  
> my "lib" is probably one of the most simple ones.


Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope.      -Edsger Dykstra

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list