I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people it makes sense to layout their interface independently from their code. design is so important for a graphical user interface! I heard this so often "I can't share my patch, because only I know, how to use it". patches without a user interface for the run-mode are not sharable. I am not talking about patches with only an on/off button... pd is very limited in that regards and I really would wish pd would make more improvement into that direction. marius.
Kevin McCoy wrote: >> The Pd graph-on-parent makes more sense IMHO because it uses existing Pd >> mechanisms for encapsulation and encourages patchers to modularize their >> programs. >> > > 100% agreed, that is why I thought "umm... what's so special about this > presentation mode?" when I saw that page. To me that should be planned into > the program. If your patches are messy for performance, code cleaner, use > subpatches, etc, no excuses for that as far as I see. Sends and receives > for gui objects have been there since I started.. I guess I wasn't really > excited about any of that stuff :) but then again maybe I misunderstand.. > > km > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
