[PD] select issues

Chris McCormick chris at mccormick.cx
Sun Dec 2 03:26:15 CET 2007

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:02:21PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
> >Which has bitten me on the ass at least once when making music with 
> >someone who uses pd-extended. Hans, I wonder if you could make it clear 
> >to people who download pd-extended that it is incompatible with Pd,
> Yes, why is Pd still incompatible with Pd-extended?

Miller is more conservative about making changes to Pd source than Hans

> >it is bundled with many externals which aren't in Pd by default?
> I thought that this is why people download pd-extended in the first place? 
> How can they not know?

It's easy for them to not know. Not every artist or user in the world
understands the nuances of Pd source code polititcs. My one data point
is my friend who had no idea that there was any other Pd than

> >Note that I really appreciate all the work you are doing to make 
> >people's lives easier, and don't want to put a dent in your efforts. I 
> >just think if we're not careful with breaking compatability people are 
> >going to get very confused very quickly.
> Any added feature, any added external is broken compatibility when it 
> comes to new patches using new features that you try to run in a previous 
> version. It's not even possible to be careful about it without standing 
> still. What do you want?

What I want is to be able to work with other Pd users safe in the
knowledge that I can recommend pd-extended to them and that my patches
and abstractions will work on Pd as well as pd-extended.

Maybe that's a completely unrealistic dream and we must accept that
my patches written for Pd will not always work for them (or will look
different etc.). In that case I'd like it to be made clear to users
downloading pd-extended exactly what the differences are between that
and Pd so they know what they are getting into.




More information about the Pd-list mailing list