[PD] Updated pd-extended

[Ivica Bukvic]

Why is this such a problem? I did not break source compatibility (well,
some of it will happen for gui objects as a result of porting gui to qt)
and for every extended release you recompile new binaries anyhow and so
does pd-l2ork, except that pd-l2ork goes even one step further offering a
monolithic release. Besides, pd is not java and there is no binary
compatibility across different platforms (except maybe libpd realized in
java, but that is not what we are talking about here). Under such
circumstances, I see binary compatibility strictly as a means of
maintaining status quo. As a final thought, consider that a lot of good
work (as you called it, and I thank you for your kind words) would not have
been possible without breaking binary compatibility which, given the
aforesaid circumstances, is a non-issue to begin with.

Best,

Ico
On Sep 25, 2014 10:54 AM, "Hans-Christoph Steiner" <hans at at.or.at> wrote:

>
> You've done a lot of good work in pd-l2ork, but you also broke binary
> compatibility of libraries for no good reason.  You could have implemented
> that feature in a way that preserved binary compatibility of libraries.
> You
> still can, and you should.
>
> .hc
>
> Ivica Bukvic wrote:
> > Well, I guess you can call me a "developer," whatever that means--I don't
> > care that much about titles. Yet, I would argue that as far as low level
> > stuff is concerned in recent years pd-l2ork has certainly pushed the
> > envelope in terms of core development. Even the feature that has earned
> me
> > the title in quotations delves so deep into the core that currently it
> > cannot be implemented in either vanilla or extended without significant
> > changes even though it retains full backwards compatibility. I would also
> > argue it is essential and offers a slew of features that are unavailable
> in
> > any other implementation of presets.
> >
> > Pd-l2ork's greatest deterrent is exclusivity to Linux, which was
> initially
> > a conscious decision to allow for faster development while addressing the
> > lack of manpower. But that is about to change once we complete port to Qt
> > library. We already transitioned to Tkpath quite a while ago which
> allowed
> > us to use a full SVG-based canvas, so I have no doubt we will be able to
> do
> > this again. Once this is done, we won't have to circumnavigate exceptions
> > Tk library requires in order to be compliant with different platforms
> and I
> > would argue in turn that will result in faster development. So, if you
> are
> > really interested in pushing the development of non-vanilla pd I think
> you
> > should heed some of Jonathan's advice and look for ways how community can
> > work together in combining the "best of" and engaging developers and
> > "developers" alike who have shown dedication to the cause. But before
> that
> > can be accomplished, the community should consider agreeing on design
> > choices. For instance, pd-l2ork came into existence because it focuses on
> > more nimble development at the expense of potential loss of backwards
> > compatibility (even though after 4 years of development the only
> > incompatibility we infatuated is correcting buggy positioning of iemgui
> > objects, which is cosmetic in nature) because a good chunk of that
> > compatibility stems from buggy implementations that stuck around long
> > enough that they became a part of the standard (e.g. iemgui's buggy
> > positioning of objects that are arbitrarily offset from their x and y
> > positions, as reported by the pd script), which is unfortunate.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ico
> > On Sep 23, 2014 9:21 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree. Your example lists what? 2 more developers? I'm talking
> about
> >> "developers" as in people working the C code, build scripts, tcl/tk etc
> aka
> >> people who could, theoretically, help push out a new Pd-extended
> release.
> >> True, we have plenty of people working on externals, but this is a
> problem
> >> for someone who can go deeper.
> >>
> >> I still maintain that the number of low level developers to overall
> users
> >> (non-developers) is relatively low.
> >>
> >> On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> >>
> >> However, your description of the user/developer ratio doesn't ring true
> to
> >> me.  There's actually a surplus of developers and development energy-- I
> >> count two implementations of presets in the last year or two (in
> Pd-l2ork
> >> and the Chocolate et Coffee lib) which are in addition to however many
> >> already exist on svn and the Pd forum.
> >>
> >>
> >> --------
> >> Dan Wilcox
> >> @danomatika
> >> danomatika.com
> >> robotcowboy.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> N �n�r����)em�h�yhiם�w^��
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20140925/2a41c528/attachment.html>