[Pdweb] front page text

Nicolas Montgermont nicolas_montgermont at yahoo.fr
Thu Jan 24 11:19:49 CET 2013


Le 23/01/13 20:16, András Murányi a écrit :
> I think the first paragraph is lovely and we shall keep it as it is, 
> to avoid extra iterations.
> I don't wholeheartedly agree with the rewrite of the 2nd paragraph: 
I think as well it must be corrected.
> the points about pd being free and being available in source are 
> missing now, 
I agree for free. For the sources, as the first line of the text says 
it's an open source software, I am not sure it's necessary.
> as well as a the point that pd-extended is more than vanilla+externals 
> but it's also patched. 
I don't think it's specially relevant when you want to explain 
Pd-extended in one line.
> Also, afaik, vanilla is not "written by" Miller but rather 
> "maintained" by him as it contains code from various authors. 
please edit, I think it's just a question of adding "mainly" somewhere.
> So, at the end, I personally prefer how this paragraphed looked before 
> the last commit.
> All this work being quite subjective (as it is free text not program 
> code) *please* give some reasons/rationale when you make change 
> changes: why did you do what you did, what is the improvement? 
> Otherwise we might just keep changing until the end of times :o)
You are right:
What I wanted to do here is trying to equilibrate the informations. I 
think it's much more relevant for a newcomer to know what is PD vs Pd 
extended, than to know Pd is available for IRIX. For me the text is more 
looking like a technical explanation around Pd, than an introduction to 
the Pd universe. For example, GEM was not mentionned once in the whole 
text, but cyclone was. In the end, it is more an introduction for 
developpers, than for users. What I think we must correct. It's a matter 
of balancing the informations, and to start from the beginning.
> I don't think we need the extra paragraph about graphical programming, 
> but a picture of an actual patch would tell a lot (without words).
I disagree. The whole point of Pd is patching, but the word is only used 
once in the text in the sentence:
It is easy to extend Pd by nesting reusable patches ("abstractions") or  
by  utilising object classes ("externals").

No words are written on what is a patch. And I think it's totally 
fundamental.
> I don't support mixing the 3rd and the 4th paragraph either - they are 
> two different points (extendability, history).
If you want. IMHO, Pd extendability can be introduced in a sentence 
where Pd basic usage needs a paragraph. Max explanations worth a look 
for comparisons with pd's:
http://cycling74.com/whatismax/


I think as well the sentence from the 4th paragraph:
The core of Pd (aka Pd Vanilla) is written and maintained by Miller 
Puckette and includes the work of many developers,   making the whole 
package very much a community effort.

is redundant now.

It should be nice to have other opinions on all that?
We are close to publishing :)
Best,
n


-- 
http://nim.on.free.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pdweb/attachments/20130124/8b65322f/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pdweb mailing list