[PD] Not accepting new objects in Cyclone, why not? (was Re: Nettles)

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 21:23:07 CET 2016

2016-02-17 16:33 GMT-02:00 Fred Jan Kraan <fjkraan at xs4all.nl>:

> Hi Alexandre,
>> You may have noticed a pull request already for [pong]. I'm working with
>> someone else and we should be having scale / scale~ / atodb / dbtoa /
>> atodb~ / dbtoa~ / trunc~ ready quite soon!
> Yes, I noticed. I appreciate all you do for pd and cyclone in particular,
> but I cannot accept the request. Cyclone is one of the few libraries with a
> closed set of objects; only those part of Max/MSP, arbitrary set around
> version 4.6 or 5.
> Cyclone is already quite big, with 150+ objects. This seems a good reason
> to be selective in which objects should be added. Just because objects are
> or should be in Max/MSP is not reason enough.

Well, I appreciate the work you're doing too, and I hope you appreciate the
interest on this library from users and willing collaborators.

I fail to see the reason why you wouldn't accept the collaboration of other
to include new objects cloned from Max, when they were properly coded,
tested, and presented with help files. What is your particular problem with
this object? What are your criteria for the decision of not including

> If it exists in another library, it is unneeded IMHO.

This seems to be the only criteria you raised. Well, pong, for example,
does something that I don't know if other objects do... for all I know,
it's not available in other libraries! So there you go.

Moreover, how would one know if a particular object from Max is presented
in another library if it's missing from cyclone? If someone is looking for
a set of objects from Max to work in Pd, he cannot know what other objects
with different names and in which different libraries it exist... lets say
there's some other object out there that replaces pong, how can I know?

But mostly, one should not be forced to download several libraries if they
are looking for a set of max objects when installing only one particular
library would do it. And who can tell if those libraries are being
maintained? If we were still in the Pd Extended era, maybe you could reason
that, but that is over, and that is one more reason why cyclone should be
added with as much clones as possible.

By the way, lyonpoutporri has cartopol~ and poltocar~, what should we do
now, get rid of the cyclone versions?

In my opinion, I don't think there is any reason why one object should not
be included. Specially if many people are interested in them and even
collaborating. I've been getting a good response of other wanting to
collaborate and that would be happy to see this project grow, now I don't
know about many people who would not like new objects to be added.

But anyway, as it turns out, I made a careful research to elect many
objects that I think are relevant to be brought to the Pd world, and one
criteria is that they are not present in other libraries (that I know of),
or that they bring interesting and useful functionalities that are not
present in the objects we have. And well, I presented this objects to the
list and you gave me instructions on how to work on them and make the pull
requests, I don't understand why - at this point in the game - you're
raising issues with collaborating and including new objects. Perhaps you
could have a look at the objects I proposed and discuss which ones you
think should be added and why.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160217/f0d270c5/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list