[PD] consolidate backward- and MaxMSP compatibility in Cyclone (was: Purpose of Cyclone)

katja katjavetter at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 16:46:20 CET 2015


On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh I know. It just seems a shame to say: "Well, somebody might have a patch somewhere from 10 years ago that relies on a 10 year old version of a library that mimics a 10 year old version  of Max running on a 10+ year old computer/os and we can't break that, ever."
>
> For vanilla objects yeah, I get it, but for externals isn't it also reasonable able to say: "It's been 10 years maybe I might need to update that patch that uses that 10 year old external lib."
>
> I'm not saying break things arbitrarily but, in the case of Max, they don't want to break people's patches either (and I bet there are more patches out in the wild than Pd patches). What has max changed object-wise between 4.6 & 7 that actually breaks things? I'd say very little and, if so, the whole argument is kind of moot so why not just introduce those non breaking changes made by Max?
>
> If only we had someone who could extensively test, compare versions, and make notes about these differences. That would make not easy to see what might be a problem an what's easy to add. Oh wait, hasn't Alexandre been spending alot of time doing just that?
>
> IE if an object historically had one output and and update adds another, how does that break old patches that only use 1 output?

It doesn't, and it sounds better than:

>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about versioning? If people *have* to have older compatibility, then
>>> why can’t they just run an older version of cyclone?



More information about the Pd-list mailing list