[PD] opinions on the issue of concurrent implementations

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/06/2012 12:25 PM, Ed Kelly wrote:
> True, but looking outside of the scope of audio for a second...

my point was, that there is a reason for specialized objects, even if
they are written in an obscure compiled language like C.

i wouldn't want to do anything requiring low latencies (like audio) with
PdOS.

> 
> The point I am trying to make is that Pd should be able to read and write any file, with interpretation of the data implemented on an ad-hoc basis. In this way, mrpeach/binfile is incredibly useful. Obviously non-audio files will mostly generate noise if played back as audio, but Pd provides so many other ways in which data can be sonified, visualized etc...
> 

[binfile] has many uses, and i'm very glad that it is there.
e.g. the [srtfile] object i mentioned in the other thread ("[text3d] &
video subtitling in Pd") is really a Pd-patch around [binfile].

there is still little merit in implementing [mp3write~] as patch,
besides pedagogy and ego-boosty.

mfgasrd
IOhannes