[PD] [PD-announce] the end of type restrictions

[Andy Farnell]

I'm now quite confused about the purpose and direction of DesireData.
When Chun made his presentation at FAVE last year I was very excited.
The idea of forking the pd-gui to make a much improved interface that
could be used with Pd seemed wonderful, sensible, and needed. Several
people asked the question "Is this new interface compatible with the
existing Pd?", and the answer was an unqualified "yes". 

I've always seen it as a smart move, taking advantage of Millers
forsight in designing Pd as a client-server architecture and using
that decoupling to improve the interface. I don't even understand
why anyone is talking about changing object behaviours, those are
part of the server/engine not the interface surely?

Is DesireData heading in the direction of being a completely 
different piece of software incompatible with PureData?

Will I still be able to install the DesireData interface and use
it with Pd?

Why are these great new objects like [tracecall] that Mathieu is
building not being added to Pd?



On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> 
> > I was hoping that compatibilty as a goal would be a two-way
> > compatibility: Patches, that were developed on DD would also be
> > running on MSP-Pd, minus some features like faster graphics or special
> > objects like [tracecall] (which would only be like a missing
> > external).
> 
> missing functionality is missing functionality. It can be missing classes, 
> missing methods, it can be nonsense output such as empty symbols, it's 
> still missing functionality. I don't know why the addition of any classes 
> like [tracecall] [parse] [unparse] [unpost] etc. would be exempt from your 
> two-way requirement.
> 
> I think that the argument we're having, boils down to whether the
> type-checking is a real feature of [unpack].
> 
> > So I conclude that your compatibility is a one-way street, which I think 
> > is a pity.
> 
> Sorry, why does it have to be two-way?... I think that it's a pity that 
> you're asking for two-way.
> 
> > I just find the disappearing or changing meaning of "0" confusing.
> 
> What have you ever used that meaning for?
> 
>   _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada


-- 
Use the source