[PD] midi to osc?
IOhannes m zmölnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Jul 9 21:15:10 CEST 2009
Derek Holzer wrote:
> I knew somebody would have to complicate my simple, straightforward
sorry: a simple, straightforward and misleading answer.
> Why hasn't somebody made this the "default" set of OSC objects in
> Extended by now then? Or perhaps replaced the original oscx libraries
> with these in a non-breaking way?
oh, i have.
i don't use Pd-extended, i don't know where i should have put these
iirc, i have also posted such a wrapper on this list.
> And why is it split into two different
osc and net? maybe, because it deals with 2 different topics?
and how do you notice that it is split into 2 "different" libs in PdX?
> Couldn't these objects be wrapped to give the same name as the standard
> OSC objects,
ähm, what is the "standard OSC objects".
> but with whatever "better" functionality the list gurus
> have decided they give?
it's not about "better" functionality.
it's about a broken and unmaintained object that only works in the most
simple cases vs. an actively maintained one.
i hardly ever care for the "added" functionality (if by
"added/additional/superfluous" you really mean "according to the OSC
standard"), like having typetags.
however, i do care for if an object will crash during performance or not.
> For n00bs, having to use two different
> non-standard/non-default libs is just super confusing, and distracts
> from the task at hand, which is not to goof around with configuring Pd
> and/or importing libs but to communicate between two OSC apps.
i totally agree.
this is why i don't understandd why anybody would recommend the
outdated, non-maintained, broken choice of these 2 libs.
> Also for writing the FLOSS Manual, a "correct" chapter on OSC now means
> either Path or [import] has to be discussed first, and then two
> different libs must be used. Big fat bummer!
when using oscx, you are using a library: so either Path or [import] (or
better [declare]) have to be discussed first.
so what's the difference to mrpeach's libs?
however, indeed you have to use 2 objects instead of just 1. big fat bummer!
> Can anybody say (in a few sentences rather than a lengthly thread) why
> one wouldn't use the simpler OSC objects for such a simple task? Points
> for brevity, nobody gets paid by the word around here ;-)
ability to communicate with OSC-apps over udp/tcp/usb/...
More information about the Pd-list