hey franz! left to right makes sense with the synthmaker environment, as each module (can) have hint texts for their in- and outputs: http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/581/smhelptexttu4.png i miss these little help texts in pd as i have to look for each module (when i found it) what each input means. sure, when you've been working with pd for years, you don't need this, but it's definately a help. hovering tips would be nice at least.
and you can, but you probably won't perform in this view. you can drag your interface together (from several subpatches levels) and just display this for the performance. like this http://www.synthmaker.co.uk/images/alieno/alieno%20M.png and hey matt: at least some sort of bent links would make sense, as horizontal links in pd are the worst, overseeing prone. maybe something not user bendable, auto bending like in plogue bidule: http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6782/ploguebidulexv5.png greetings fabb On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never worked with that, however I'm always irritated, when > patching environments have their cord connections flow left to right > instead of top to bottom. IMO that's such a waste of space in > languages, that are written horizontally. If you look at the "Midi to > Poly" object here: http://synthmaker.co.uk/images/components%20L.png > you'll see that most of it is just an empty grey rectangle, whose > width is just there to make room for the object name. If the > in/outlets were top and bottom as in Pd and Max, the box could be much > smaller without losing any information. On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would really be opposed to bendable patch cords, or especially the > segmented patch cord style in Max/MSP. It seems to me these types of > connections reinforce bad habits, as users are not encouraged to > modularize, economize, etc. and they tend to lead to the most > unreadable (and uneditable!) "spider webs" in complex projects. PD's > style forces one to be explicit, but causes some extra (and IMO, > worthwile) work to make an ergonomic interface for performers. I > think the inclusion of send and receive symbols in the graphical > objects is one of the best ideas in PD, because it allows one to > easily keep the engine hidden and out of sight, and obviates much of > the need for hideable or segmented cables. > > Also, I have had students who came from Max/MSP who created the kind > of huge, sprawling, everything-in-one-window kind of patch they got > used to doing in Max. We found that by hiding more and more things in > subpatches and abstractions, we could cut down on CPU quite a bit. I > assume this means tcl/tk redraws entire windows often, but I don't > know the details. At any rate, I don't think introducing the > segmented patch cables would necessarily result in an explosion of > unreadable patches, but I think the "clunkiness" of PDs interface > encourages thoughtfulness and efficiency, which are invaluable in > pedagogical situations. _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
