[PD] note data record / playback

[David Powers]

What would be the comparitive efficiency, of keeping track of data
with pyext and a simple Python script, versus creating a data
structure to hold the data?

Many tasks that are annoying to do in Pure Data, take about two
minutes to do in Python. At least for me.


~David

On 9/12/06, Kyle Klipowicz <kyleklip at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, so is the [pointer] object the same thing as a C pointer (*ptr)
> traversing a linked list?  I knew the had the same name, but since so
> many things are named strangely in Pd (right Matju?) I couldn't be
> sure.
>
> I guess the difficult thing for me with data structures is there is
> only the ability to traverse and step ahead, so it seems that there
> will be a lot of [until] use to get to specific portions of the data.
> There is no step backwards or prepend feature, or push/pop stuff
> either, which would be nice.  I guess they'd have to be abstractions?
> And what would be the most efficient way to keep track of things, some
> kind of construct using [until] or a counter and comparing that with
> an index value in the scalar?  Arrrg.
>
> ~Kyle
>
> On 9/12/06, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
> >
> > > What I don't understand is why there is a completely different atom,
> > > pointer, to index the datastructures.  Why not just use an integer?
> > > Is it faster?
> >
> > This is because Miller is still using linked-lists for a bunch of things
> > in Pd. Getting to element number N in a linked-list takes N steps, if you
> > don't have a pointer that gives you direct access. So, yes, it's faster.
> >
> > I won't advocate switching to integers and B-trees or something, because
> > there's also an advantage to using pointers: if you delete or insert
> > elements in a list, all integers pointing to a later part of the list will
> > get shifted to different elements; with pointers it's not the case.
> >
> > (a B-tree is one kind of array-like structure in which inserting and
> > deleting is a lot faster than in regular arrays. it's made using several
> > levels of nested arrays. This is not the same as a binary-tree, which also
> > can be used as a fast-inserting array, but which is slower than a B-tree)
> >
> > (Pd could be reimplemented with a variant on the integer system in which
> > integers wouldn't indicate the order of the objects, but i don't think
> > that it's really worth it.)
> >
> >   _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> > | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
> > | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://theradioproject.com
> http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com
>
> (((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())())))
> (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((())))
> ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________
> _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______
> ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>