[PD] WebPd - Need a small clarification

[Chris McCormick]

On 03/06/2012 04:15 PM, sebastien piquemal wrote:
>  > my preference would be for there to be an option to download a
> monolithic pd.js
>
> This goes without saying !!! That's actually what a CI server is meant
> for : automating builds. Basically, the split files would be only
> development files.

Cool!

>  > My other philosophy is to have it run with as few dependencies as
> possible
>
> That also goes without saying ! When I talked about "prototype", I was
> not at all talking about "prototype.js", I was talking about object's
> prototype. When you do like this :
>
> function PdObject() {
> this.tofloat = function(data) {
> //bla
> };
> };
>
> You basically give a copy of "tofloat" function to each instance of
> PdObject. The proper way to do that would be to use prototype :
>
> function PdObject() {
> // bla
> };
> PdObject.prototype.tofloat = function(data) {
> //bla
> };
>
> That way, all instances of PdObject share the same method (same can be
> done for all methods to save a bit of memory). By using prototype, you
> can also implement a nice inheritance mechanism, which would make
> writing new objects a bit simpler.

Yep, that's much better.

>  > At the end of the day I guess it's kind of obvious that if there was
> a way to make a patch in Pd and then put that patch on a website for as
> many people as possible to play with
>
> Yep !!! I definitely share that vision ! Anyways there's not other
> solution currently, since you need to prototype your patch with
> PureData, before porting it to web.
>
> About all the TODOs, there's definitely a lot to do !!! I understood
> most of them, but some are a bit unclear ... I have my own favorites -
> like a driver for Webkit browsers -, and some that I already know I
> won't do - like flash stuff : berk ... let's look towards the future for
> Pete's sake !!! IE will hopefully end-up implementing an audio API as
> well !!!

When a user puts a patch online I am sure they want as many people as 
possible to be able to use that patch, that's my only point. It's a 
reality that more people on the planet use IE than any other browser (as 
horrible as that fact is). If it's possible to support IE then we 
should, for the sake of users.

Anyway, I think it just means I will have to maintain the Flash driver 
myself, which is horrible, but I realise nobody else will want to touch 
this. :)

Cheers,

Chris.

-- 
http://mccormick.cx/