[PD] uzi redundancy and how to load kalashnikov as uzi

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

I remember when Castonguay came here in 2008, and in the occasion there
were 4 or 5 Alexandres in the same room - it was kinda confusing :O

2015-03-09 2:40 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:

> "
>
> *there is no harm in having "uzi" and "uzi" and "uzi", as long as it
> isclear which one is currently used (something Pd still lacks, despite**hans'
> great work in the past).*"
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I guess the worst is just being kinda
> unstable to know which one will actually be loaded... and how this
> conflicts are affecting even the help files. I'm not gonna repeat all the
> issues, but I see it's kinda harmful as it is.
>
> But then, you could deal with this sort of thing is by having the name of
> the library before the object, like [cyclone/uzi]...
>
> "*what you have gained is a centralized distribution of a decentralized
> development process that has **broken any old patch by discarding
> backwards compatibility.*"
>
> backwards compatibility is not something that's being actually maintained
> in extended. It's been kind of a hectic development, some libraries are
> removed and inserted, and just making it possible to load "Uzi" as "uzi"
> created new issues as I've raised - like not being able to call kalashnikov
> as uzi anymore.
>
> So I do have a different opinion, I believe it's not to hard to eliminate
> some noise that eventually shows up and avoid some conflicts, it looks to
> me as if it is for the best.
>
> but then, it'd be good to see some real talk about the future of extended,
> or how to make it easier to add libraries from extended into vanilla before
> sharing opinions.
>
> cheers
>
> 2015-03-08 17:50 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>:
>
>> On 03/07/2015 11:27 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>> >
>> > But if you load kalashnikov first, well, now you won't get cyclone's
>> > version when you type "uzi", but kalashnikov...
>> >
>> > so, well, kinda confusing...
>>
>> yes, very confusing.
>> but not something unheard of, and i think humans are quite good at
>> dealing with such things.
>> imagine, one of the organizers of Pd~con 2007 is called "Alexandre" and
>> one of the organizers of Pd~con 2009 is called "Alexandre".
>> one is inclined to think that they are the same (after all, they do
>> similar things and go by the same name), but it turns out that in fact
>> they are totally incompatible (crashing *your* place in Montreal might
>> make me end up sleeping on the street!)¹
>>
>> > I'd vouch for trying and eliminating the redundancy and equal names
>> > somehow. I'd suggest killing the alias name of kalashnikov, it'd solve
>> all
>> > that for Pd Extended.
>>
>> and get rid of cyclone's [uzi], as it already has [Uzi].
>>
>> >
>> > but again, useless and pointless discussion if we're not dealing with an
>> > update of Pd Extended right now.
>> >
>>
>> no, i think that the discussion is important, as it shows one of the big
>> problems with the architecture of a monolithic Pd-extended.
>>
>> the question is: do "we" (the hypothetical PdX maintainers) provide a
>> consistent system where everything is nice and easy; or do we just
>> provide a largish collection of libraries for all kind of problems.
>>
>> i think the 1st option is *totally* out of scope.
>>
>> the fact is, that PdX currently *is* a largish collection of libraries,
>> sharing a significant overlap (both in functionality and in naming).
>>
>> it would require multiple fulltime jobs to sort this pile into
>> consistent stack (and it would take a similar number of workpower to
>> keep it in that state!).
>> and once you have eliminated all redundancies, what you have gained is a
>> centralized distribution of a decentralized development process that has
>> broken any old patch by discarding backwards compatibility.
>>
>> just *having* such a distribution does not mean that anybody will use it
>> (e.g. those people that do not upgrade from PdX-0.42 to PdX-0.43
>> because...) nor that anybody will *develop* components (externals,...)
>> for it (apart from those fulltime jobbers).
>>
>> my point has always been that we should *embrace* the multitude in Pd,
>> rather than eliminate it.
>>
>> there is no harm in having "uzi" and "uzi" and "uzi", as long as it is
>> clear which one is currently used (something Pd still lacks, despite
>> hans' great work in the past).
>>
>>
>> having said all that, Pd-l2ork probably already does a decent job in
>> providing a consistent distribution (but i haven't checked recently; and
>> of course, l2ork/dsis also *added* a few new objects the functionality
>> of which is already included in PdX - so not exactly minimizing the pool
>> of objects either) - most likely because it *is* powered by
>> institutional backing (see "fulltime jobber").
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ¹ actually i don't know how often you and alexandre have been confused;
>> i know for sure that a lot of people mistake me for hans-christoph
>> although the name is really not *that* similar, and we often shared very
>> differing opinions. do you have any suggestions for my case :-)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150309/8f2dfaf8/attachment-0001.html>