[PD] pduino rewrite

Roman Haefeli reduzent at gmail.com
Thu Sep 15 18:43:48 CEST 2011

On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 11:36 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:01 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote:
> > > The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the "debyte" is that I
> > > wanted to keep the number of files and dependencies as low as possible. I
> > > think this was the original idea of the rewrite, right?
> > 
> > Yeah, exactly. I would like to be able to install [arduino] also on a
> > plain Pd-vanilla setup with the least amount of additional effort.
> > [comport] will always be needed, of course.
> Well, now you can and trivially install all but one of the dependencies
> for 'puredata' aka Pd vanilla using:
> apt-get install pd-cyclone pd-mapping pd-zexy
> Only moocow is missing.  I'd bet it'll be much less work to package
> moocow then to rewrite and manage a fork of arduino.pd.

I'm not sure about this, but I mostly agree with you. When packaging
arduino as a pd-lib.deb, it would be trivial to add the dependencies.

However, I find I found some rather ugly stuff inside [arduino] that I
definitely wanted to get rid of, such as [prepend] from cyclone. 

On the long run, I don't see the point in having two different [arduino]
classes to be maintained. If at some point, improvements of both can be
merged to one class, I'm all for it. Even if it means re-adding some
externals. But for stuff that is very trivial to do with vanilla
classes, I don't see the point in using externals. And no, I really
don't think that adds a lot of maintenance load to the class. 


More information about the Pd-list mailing list