Hi Hans! Let me prefix this by saying I think you and everyone else are doing great work with pd-extended.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:19:45AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Chris McCormick wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 03:02:14AM +0000, Chris McCormick wrote: >> >> 1. Pd is minimal whilst pd-extended is maximal. Hans has stated on list >> that he would like to include as many externals as possible in the >> distribution. I think this is a bad architectural decision which leads to >> complexity and bugs. I would rather run something which has an >> architecture I agree with. > > Just like to throw in my two cents since I am mentioned by name ;) I may > have said that years ago, but that is definitely no longer the case and > hasn't been for years. We really should be working towards a common, simple > library format so we don't need to include so much stuff in a single package. Ok! I am obviously behind the times. Sorry about that. I guess it's still the case that at this point in time it is included in a single package, but very nice to hear that you are moving towards something more modular. I should note that Pd itself is not very modular in terms of the way it's distributed, it's just that there is not a lot of stuff in it. >> 2. pd-extended has not yet earned my trust as a software project. I have >> been using Pd for a few years, and it has earned my trust. There are many >> things which Miller has not implemented which I wish he had, but there are >> far fewer things that he has implemented which I wish he hadn't. > > If you do find problems please do let us know. I will, thanks for the invitation. This is one of the great things about pd-extended, that the development is so public and open. I am looking forward to the day when pd-extended fits my needs and I can begin to trust it when I use it more. >> 3. Hans is the leader of the pd-extended project, and I disagree with many >> of his technical decisions. I don't trust him to make technical decisions as >> much as I trust Miller. This may be outweiged down the track by >> evolutionary pressure, since pd-extended will be subjected to a lot more >> pressure than Pd will be, because Pd basically has a sole maintainer. For >> me this is the biggest thing going for pd-extended - it is properly exposed >> to the evolutionary pressures of the Free Software community. > > Funny, I never wanted to be a leader of this, I'd much prefer it if more > people were involved in the work and the decision making. And thankfully, > I'm not the only one who works on it. Others have contributed a lot as > well. Of course, and you are doing a neccessary job and I think a lot of people appreciate it, especially people who just want to get something working fast on their platform, and need the functionality of some externals but can't compile them. >> 4. I often want to run Pd on constrained devices and in constrained places. >> Getting it to do so is hard enough without the bloat that pd-extended >> experiences. What if I want to apt-get install Pd onto my router/ >> gumstix/phone with an ARM based processor with 8MB of flash memory? > > I often to that as well. You should see how many python libraries are > available for embedded devices. Many many. Just because a library is > sitting there on the disk doesn't mean you have to use it. But it does meant > that you _can_ use it. I guess the difference is that when disk space is constrained I have the option to install or not install something with Python, whilst I don't really have that option with pd-extended. If you do an `apt-cache search python-` you will see a ton of stuff that you can optionally install. I think the Python VM and language strike the right balance with what hey choose to be 'batteries included' and what they leave out. Possibly pd-extended still needs to find that balance. > All that said, I like the forkiness of Pd and think its a strength. I don't > think everyone should use Pd-extended, or whatever. Its kind of ironic maybe > that this thread started with me talking about doing pd- vanilla maintenance > :). Yes, I agree. Choice is good. Also, that irony is not lost on me! I would really appreciate having someone dedicated to updating vanilla Pd in Debian. I must apologise for always contributing words rather that code or action, which is what you do for the benefit of us all. Cheers, Chris. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev