[Pdweb] front page text
nicolas_montgermont at yahoo.fr
Thu Mar 14 18:40:18 CET 2013
it should be nice to have any opinion on that. It's been nearly two
you can edit directly online or comment here.
Le 26/01/13 10:37, Nicolas Montgermont a écrit :
> updated once agin:
> 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!
> 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
>>> 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:
>> 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 :)
>> Pdweb mailing list
>> Pdweb at iem.at
> Pdweb mailing list
> Pdweb at iem.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pdweb