Just switch to linux and everything works better. pidip, GEM everything. I woudl love pdp/pidip to work on OSX completely too but people only seem to have so much time to devote.
pp ---- John Harrison <john.harri...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Are you sure Gem is more stable? From my last project I feel very burned > by Gem. I started coding the visuals 100% in Gem and through much > pulling of my own hair gradually ended up redoing the project in > pdp/pidip. The end result was stable (the Gem version wasn't --- > multiple objects were crashing each individually tested and I had random > freezes from different machines using Gem), looked a lot better, and > used considerably less CPU resources. This was all in Linux. > > And for me Gem also breaks many coding conventions of Pd. > > I'm not trying to trash Gem. I have the utmost respect for its > developers. I don't doubt it will be phenomenal with time and I wish to > support its continued development. But I am hesitant to recommend it > while it is in its current, perhaps unfinished, state. Example and test > patches work fine but outside of that realm my experiences have not been > positive. I have plans to document the problems I had and my thoughts > about the coding conventions. It's possible I'm misunderstanding some > things and/or maybe my concerns will help for future development. > > In terms of the Windows port idea of pdp/pidip, it's just a way for > people to play around at home. I'm not concerned about optimization > which is why I mentioned cygwin as an option. The final show will be on > Linux machines, no doubt. > > I'd hate to move out of the Pd environment for video but that may be my > next step if this doesn't work out. Maybe Processing... > > -John > > Derek Holzer wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > Well, I know what Yves' response to this will be ;-) > > > > At any rate, I'd suggest GEM over PDP anyways, you can do most of the > > same things, it's truly cross-platform (i.e. has optimizations for > > each different architecture/processor, rather than PDP which is > > optimized for Linux + x86 only), it's much better documented and it's > > much more stable. According to the PDP and PiDiP authors, neither > > library will ever be ported to Windows. > > > > best! > > Derek > > > > John Harrison wrote: > >> Wondering if there has been any exploration of any of the pdp/pidip > >> objects in win32 ---- maybe even through cygwin. > >> > >> Personal motivation: I'm teaching a class come mid-Jan where I'd like > >> to incorporate pdp/pidip. Many of the students are on windows and it > >> would be nice if they could do some development on their own machines. > >> > >> -John > >> > > > > -- > John Harrison > http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~harrison > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Patrick Pagano Sound and Light Technologist School of Theatre and Dance University of Florida _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list