[PD] Cyclone in vanilla?

marius schebella marius.schebella at gmail.com
Tue Apr 22 02:11:24 CEST 2008

the question is a very blasphemic one, and I am not sure, if I should 
bring this into discussion at all...
but how long is miller going to develop pd, and when should vanilla 
become a group effort rather than a one man show? and who is ever 
willing to take responsibility for the future direction?
right now I don't see a reason why the objects you were mentioning 
should not be in vanilla, and only miller knows the answer to that.
and I probably will be expelled from the pd-community from now on.

Andy Farnell wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:17:09 +0200
> Derek Holzer <derek at umatic.nl> wrote:
>> no worries, just thinking practically rather than wishfully ;-)
> :) always appreciate a practical attitude
> Practically, it's looking more and more like I need to drop
> the wishful thinking that I can write a useful and easy to understand
> textbook based around vanilla Pd. 
> Using [expr~ pow($v1,$v2)] instead of [pow~] is exactly the sort of
> ugly and confusing thing that sabotages learning, don't you agree?
> Why we don't make the vanilla object set operationally complete
> is beyond me. There are less than 10 essential missing objects 
> and less than 20 desirable ones.
> Why build a bridge 90% across the river and expect people to jump the
> last few meters?

More information about the Pd-list mailing list