[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[David Sabine]

Hello all,

I've come to like the way PD handles this problem.  In my understanding of
PD and MAX, yes it's a little confusing moving from one program to another -
always reminding myself "MAX = right to left", "PD = order of connections".

However, any mindful programmer appreciates having total control over the
'order of operations'.  For this, PD's [trigger] object is a lifesaver...but
to confuse the issue even further with numbered inlets and outlets would be
a grand pain in the butt.  Should we then number all send and receives too?
Should we schedule EVERY object in the patch?  That sort of practice seems
both unnecessary and very time consuming.

Having said that, GEMhead allows us to schedule on-screen rendering.  But in
GEM, this functionality is clearly necessary.

[trigger] [trigger] [trigger] = that's really the answer to this problem.

The right-to-left order in MAX is problematic because an operation that is
carefully constructed can be rendered completely useless (or at the very
least unstable) if objects are moved on the screen.

The same problem can occur in PD if a patch cord is re-drawn (this may throw
things out of whack if you're relying on single outlets to send messages
through multiple patch cords).

In both MAX and PD, there are objects designed to schedule a series of
events: in MAX there's [bangbang] and in PD there's [trigger].  These tools
should be more than enough to appease even the most discriminating users.

In regards to scheduling/numbering inlets and outlets...I vote no on the
grounds that it is not necessary as PD already provides this functionality
via [trigger].

Regards,
Dave S