[PD] Peak Level detect in Vanilla
Alexandre Torres Porres
porres at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 20:04:15 CET 2014
well, lets see if we can get this to a closure
> So, basically you are saying it is less trouble
> to make an external than an abstraction?
Nope, never said it. Not sure why you took it that way. Maybe because I
mentioned "efficiency". But that was supposed to mean computer efficiency,
and as a response to what I thought was a general question about compiled
classes vs abstractions. Not that the discussion was really about that,
and, more importantly, not that is was my point at all, as I clearly stated
and then shifted to my point after that...
I didn't even feel like moving the discussion that way, that's why I tried
not to do it and stick to my point, by the way.
> I give you an abstraction and you say you're
> still looking for the external?
No no no. I'm not looking for no external. I already know about the
external, and I even mentioned about it in my sencond message on this
thread, when I said I was hoping there'd be a "[peakenv~] like object" in
Vanilla. And then I pointed it could come as a feature in a probable update
I've been using [peakenv~] and mostly [prvu~], I think they're great.
> Agreed, but I still have difficulties in understanding
> why you desperately need it to be a compiled class
> (I am certainly not against it, though).
I wouldn't say I'm "desperate"... so you don't need to keep having trouble
trying to figure me out. Also, I never even said I "need" this to be a
compiled class, cause I actually do not. I'm happy to share my point yet
again, but please don't misinterpret/misjudge my words.
Once more, my only point is that I *think* this is an important feature
that *should* come in vanilla objects, it deserves to! Maybe as an
extension to [env~], like in a second outlet... that wouldn't hurt... and
wouldn't even require a new object. Anyway, that's all there's to it.
I think I'm being very clear and straightforward. Not anyone here thought
this was a bad idea too (so it seems), now I'm wondering what is all the
commotion about... or does anyone think this is actually a bad idea?
I mean, I seriously wonder what's the deal. Pd Vanilla comes with a very
limited set of objects, we all know that. I can get by with that with no
problem. I'm just pointing how one little thingy could come into the set,
and suddenly things get off track to turn into such a debate. I don't know,
I suspect there can be something to it... :)
> Why are abstractions second class citizens in your opinion?
Maybe if I had ever stated that, I could answer you to that question. What
you could ask me without putting words in my mouth is: why do I think Peak
Level detection should come as a function in a compiled class in Pd
Vanilla, when you can do it as an abstraction or when there's a couple of
objects in Pd-Extended that'll do it for you.
Well, I think it is such a basic feature that deserves to be out of the box
from Pd Vanilla in an object like [env~], and I guess I'm repeating
Thing is I have very little knowledge in C and compiling objects, so doing
abstractions is All I do... I think it's great people like me can get by
with them... but you know, eventually some stuff will get you thinking
"hmm, this could have already been made available out of Vanilla objects..."
Moreover, I mentioned [vu] (a vanilla GUI) in my first message and how it
receives peak level, but no vanilla object does that job. That looks like
something missing or incomplete in Vanilla. I really hope to see [env~]
handling that issue soon.
That'll make my day and think the world is a better place.
2014-03-11 6:40 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 21:31 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > > What is the difference between using
> > > an abstraction or a compiled class?
> > well, I assume they can be more efficient, but my only point here is
> > what I said already and that you agree with - peak level should be
> > available, seems like lots of trouble to need to make an abstraction
> > for it.
> So, basically you are saying it is less trouble to make an external than
> an abstraction? The fact that neither I nor you made an external
> indicates otherwise.
> > I know there's an external around,
> I give you an abstraction and you say you're still looking for the
> external? Why are abstractions second class citizens in your opinion?
> > but I mean it deserves to be in vanilla.
> Agreed, but I still have difficulties in understanding why you
> desperately need it to be a compiled class (I am certainly not against
> it, though).
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list