[PD] d_fat vs. pd_darwin (was Re: Gem 0.91-2 bugfix release)
hans at eds.org
Thu Jan 22 20:20:46 CET 2009
On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:12 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> There are numerous real arguments against d_fat:
>> - Gem has used .pd_darwin for a long time and it has worked well
> holy cow: Gem has used .dll for a long time and it has worked well :-)
>> - Using .d_fat will cause confusion when people have both a
>> Gem.pd_darwin and a Gem.d_fat
> that's why people shouldn't have and pd_darwin's on their machines.
> seriously, the way it is now, with Pd-extended shipping pd_darwin
> and me shipping d_fat, i can only see that both profit.
> people can upgrade using my binary, without actually having to
> overwrite the original binary and can revert to it later.
>> - Mac OS X never uses CPU-specific file extensions
> OS-X does not come with Pd.
>> - supporting so many file extensions increases load time a lot
> yes that's a good one.
> according to s_loader in both https://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-data/branches/pd-extended/v0-40/pd/src/s_loader.c
> and https://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pure-data/branches/pd-extended/0.41/pd/src/s_loader.c
> , Pd will _first_ look for .d_fat and only then for .pd_darwin.
> now wait, the links above actually point to Pd-extended's branch of
> the Pd-sources....so Pd-extended will speed up if we use .d_fat
> instead of .pd_darwin
> you can either accept this, or patch Pd for Pd-extended to not be
> able to load .d_fat's.
>> and more...
> the original arguments why the new suffixes have been introduced was
> - to create a consistent naming scheme across all platforms
> - to allow binaries of multiple architectures/platforms live side by
> the latter still holds true, even when using OSX: please do accept
> that people use network-shares across multiple archtiectures and
> platforms(!) for their workspaces, even if you don't do so yourself.
> even if you don't know any such persons.
> side effects of not using the platforms native suffix are numerous
> and benevolent.
> finally: i would have preferred and indication of Pd in the suffix,
> e.g. .pd.d_fat instead of just .d_fat;
> for this is is arguably too late.
Lots of people have been doing network shares of applications for
decades. Who else is using custom file extensions? I've never seen
it. NeXTSTEP/Mac OS X has been doing this since '94, and their
solution has been fat binaries all with the same extension. That is
what universal binaries are today. It's proven to work well.
Just because this broken thing is established doesn't mean we can't
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin
More information about the Pd-list