[Pdweb] front page text

[András Murányi]

OK, I've made a light review.
It would be nice if other people took a look too before we settle on it.

András

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Nicolas Montgermont <
nicolas_montgermont at yahoo.fr> wrote:

>  hello all,
>
> it should be nice to have any opinion on that. It's been nearly two months
> now.
> you can edit directly online or comment here.
> Best,
> n
>
> Le 26/01/13 10:37, Nicolas Montgermont a écrit :
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pdweb/attachments/20130328/565d5264/attachment.htm>