[PD] pdp/pidip on win32?

[bigswift at cox.net]

Just switch to linux and everything works better. pidip, GEM everything.
I woudl love pdp/pidip to work on OSX completely too but people only seem to have so much time to devote.

pp


---- John Harrison <john.harrison at alum.mit.edu> wrote: 
> Are you sure Gem is more stable? From my last project I feel very burned 
> by Gem. I started coding the visuals 100% in Gem and through much 
> pulling of my own hair gradually ended up redoing the project in 
> pdp/pidip.  The end result was stable (the Gem version wasn't --- 
> multiple objects were crashing each individually tested and I had random 
> freezes from different machines using Gem), looked a lot better, and 
> used considerably less CPU resources. This was all in Linux.
> 
> And for me Gem also breaks many coding conventions of Pd.
> 
> I'm not trying to trash Gem. I have the utmost respect for its 
> developers. I don't doubt it will be phenomenal with time and I wish to 
> support its continued development. But I am hesitant to recommend it 
> while it is in its current, perhaps unfinished, state. Example and test 
> patches work fine but outside of that realm my experiences have not been 
> positive. I have plans to document the problems I had and my thoughts 
> about the coding conventions. It's possible I'm misunderstanding some 
> things and/or maybe my concerns will help for future development.
> 
> In terms of the Windows port idea of pdp/pidip, it's just a way for 
> people to play around at home. I'm not concerned about optimization 
> which is why I mentioned cygwin as an option. The final show will be on 
> Linux machines, no doubt.
> 
> I'd hate to move out of the Pd environment for video but that may be my 
> next step if this doesn't work out. Maybe Processing...
> 
> -John
> 
> Derek Holzer wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Well, I know what Yves' response to this will be ;-)
> >
> > At any rate, I'd suggest GEM over PDP anyways, you can do most of the 
> > same things, it's truly cross-platform (i.e. has optimizations for 
> > each different architecture/processor, rather than PDP which is 
> > optimized for Linux + x86 only), it's much better documented and it's 
> > much more stable. According to the PDP and PiDiP authors, neither 
> > library will ever be ported to Windows.
> >
> > best!
> > Derek
> >
> > John Harrison wrote:
> >> Wondering if there has been any exploration of any of the pdp/pidip 
> >> objects in win32 ---- maybe even through cygwin.
> >>
> >> Personal motivation: I'm teaching a class come mid-Jan where I'd like 
> >> to incorporate pdp/pidip. Many of the students are on windows and it 
> >> would be nice if they could do some development on their own machines.
> >>
> >> -John
> >>
> >
> 
> -- 
> John Harrison
> http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~harrison
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

--
Patrick Pagano
Sound and Light Technologist
School of Theatre and Dance
University of Florida