[PD] "list foreach"?

Chris McCormick chris at mccormick.cx
Fri Oct 10 10:19:44 CEST 2014


On 10/10/14 15:48, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> One last clarification-- I'm saying that I use the development process
> Chris outlines to do work on all flavors.  What frustrated me on this
> thread is the idea of a process where the community suggests or votes
> for certain features, and Miller adds them.  That model is too
> conservative-- it leads to fewer developers actually looking at the core
> code and (potentially) improving things.

Completely agree that would be too conservative. I don't think that's
how it works now either because other developer's patches do go into Pd.
For non-developer users I guess they have no other choice of course.

I am sorry if it sounded like I was telling you to do something that you
are already doing. That would be pretty annoying.

I think that for some features there is a case to be made for consensus
before development with so many actors and variants in the mix, but only
on features that we all think make sense to be shared by all flavours of
Pd. I think "list foreach" is a classic example of that type of thing
where it probably wouldn't be good for users if we had different
versions of this core object implemented.

Can you think of any others that are in Pd-l2ork right now that you feel
like probably should be in all versions of Pd?

I don't think it's reasonable for Pd-l2ork developers to feel like they
have to check every change with the community or with Miller. Happily,
that's not the case now and as a result you guys have been able to
innovate in very interesting directions.

There's probably a balance in there somewhere that lets users of
Pd-l2ork and users of Pd, extended, and libpd all win.

Cheers,

Chris.

-- 
http://mccormick.cx/



More information about the Pd-list mailing list