[PD] Purpose of Cyclone (was: Cyclone features or Cyclone updates)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2015-12-15 16:22 GMT-02:00 Fred Jan Kraan <fjkraan at xs4all.nl>:

> Hi Alexandre,
>
>> Compatibility is limited to a very old version of Max/MSP.
>>>
>>
>> That really confused me, as a Max 7 user...
>>
>
> Why? If any version of Max/MSP looks like Pd, it is 4.6 (or maybe earlier
> versions, but I don't have access to those...).
>

Because it is not a matter on how it "looks", and Max 7 is still the same
patching environment, it's not like it changed and lost compatibility,
hence I'm using both Max 7 and cyclone and I'm happy about it.

It's not like Max 7 killed and broke backwards compatibilty with earlier
versions and patches. So we don't have to consider it as having to be tied
to 4.6..

Perhaps you mean we'll never be able to come close to what Max 7 is now in
general. But I don't think that was ever possible and the purpose of
cyclone was not to make a clone of the Max/MSP Software.

I think this is a very serious and sensitive topic, as the purpose of
cyclone is not being really considered in your point of view, and this
might interferes with the purpose, or even kill it...


> For me this makes backward compatibility more important
>>> than with an obsolete Max/MSP version.
>>>
>>
If I got it right, you're basically saying:

- Cyclone should be a copy of an outdated and obsolete Max/MSP version and
we shouldn't care on keeping up with improvements in Max because it is
impossible and only really likely or reasonably possible within the
limitations of max/msp 4.6 as a software.

- Not caring about the developments in earlier versions of Max, we're stuck
to 4.6, but since it is an obsolete version of Max, we shouldn't care about
being faithful to it either, or Max for that matter.

Thus, we'd basically lose the idea of having a library of objects
compatible to Max/Msp objects, and we also do not care of the original
purpose of it. Well, that is not a good take on my opinion.

*I agree Cyclone is now (and has always been because of its stage of
development) a copy/clone of an outdated and obsolete Max/MSP version*.
That is why I think it's good we'd try to keep it up to date with and care
on keeping up with improvements in Max/Msp objects.


About [average~], the thing is that was wrong to begin with, it couldn't
>> load max patches in the first place, it should have been signal all along.
>>
>
> I agree average~ was wrong all along. But it has been wrong wrong for
> about twelve years. I do not want to invalidate twelve years of patches.
> If you want to copy a Max patch with average~ in Pd, you could use another
> object or an abstraction. PureData is supposed to be a tool to help
> understand DSP technique and make creative sounds. Not to be able to
> blindly copy Max/MSP patches.


Again... that WAS the purpose of Cyclone in Pd... to be able to implement
MAx/Msp objects in Pd - and that seems to be completely unregarded by your
development effort in Cyclone.

Btw, let me post what the purpose of cyclone is still described as in here:
https://puredata.info/downloads/cyclone

I'll bring some exerpts and highlight a few key words.

Cyclone: *a library of clones of Max/MSP* 4.5 *objects*

"a library of PureData classes, bringing *some* level of compatibility
between Max/MSP and Pd environments (...) In its current form, cyclone is
mainly for people using both Max and Pd, *and thus wanting to develop
cross-platform patches*.
Cyclone also comes handy, somewhat, in the task of importing Max/MSP 4.x
patches into Pd. Do not expect miracles, though, it is usually not an easy
task."

The project description is outdated, see that importing max patches to Pd
was not a main goal then, and now we could basically forget about it - but
the main point still remains, which is being, first of all; 1) a library of
clones of Max/MSP objects; 2) bringing *some* level of compatibility
between the platforms; 3) allowing cross platform patches.

Indeed, for me backward compatibility more important than Max/MSP
> compatibility.
>

well, we have seemed to open this discussion because of that problem with
the average~ object... it's not really about the object though, it's really
about how you are interfering with the purpose of cyclone, and the action
you're taking is just a reflect on it.

This is a sensitive issue because you're just killing the purpose of
cyclone to whatever you feel like, which is not clear yet by the way, and
that is, in my opinion, a Fork - you're creating a Cyclone Fork...

Please be careful with that, and lets discuss if you really want to do
that, and perhaps this list should raise opinions about this. As a cyclone
user (perhaps the only one so far sharing an opinion), I feel really badly
about this.

But the point I wanna raise is that You do not need to change the purpose
of Cyclone. There's nothing really that should encourage you to hop onboard
and change the course like that. Or is it? We've just touched this
discussion because of a silly object, and I suggested something you could
do to avoid breaking the purpose of cyclone and still maintaining the
backwards compatibility thing if that's important (just create a new/second
right signal outlet that is faithful to the original object).

If you do that, we don't need to discuss how the purpose is changing, and
there doesn't seem to be any reason why it should.


> Another reason is the limited time I can spend on maintaining cyclone. The
> 4.6 functionality is a useful, but somewhat arbitrary guiding principle.
> And as you observed, most of the missing objects are not that essential...
>

I get the idea that the developers may not keep up with latest developments
in Max/MSP, but that is not a good reason that it Should Not. In fact, it
asks for other people to join in and help with the project and just map
what has been done and still could be essentially done. I've also raised
and reported basically all the last major bugs...

I have actually been doing that throughly throughout this year in an
extensive research of my own. I'm willing to collaborate. I've mapped a lot
so far, and I ask if my help could be accepted in this project.

It's not like I have tons of things to do to make cyclone up to the stage
of Max 7.1 - it's just a not that big list of features that have been added
to the objects that I find most relevant and important - average~ being one
of them, since no other object in the Pd world seems to do what it does (it
behaves as very neat and nice average filter).


But enough typing opinions for now, I prefer to do some improvement on
> cyclone objects tonight :-).


Well, hope you've made some cool progress, I'm really happy you came up to
help, this is a project that needed attention, but I also think these
opinions are important and I even hoped we had discussed them before. I
hope others in the list could share their thoughts. I'm really concerned
here on the direction this is taking. I hope we can still maintain the main
purpose of cyclone.

cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20151221/47e11ed8/attachment-0001.html>