[Pdweb] front page text
Nicolas Montgermont
nicolas_montgermont at yahoo.fr
Sat Jan 26 10:37:04 CET 2013
updated once agin:
http://piratepad.net/pPEAhgQS00
i've kept the old version down there for comparison, and eventually to
cancel the corrections I've made.
Please edit directly or comment, correct!
best,
n
Le 24/01/13 11:19, Nicolas Montgermont a écrit :
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdweb mailing list
> Pdweb at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb
--
http://nim.on.free.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pdweb/attachments/20130126/7e58ec8c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pdweb
mailing list