On 02/23/2014 08:15 PM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com <mailto:danomat...@gmail.com>> wrote:On Feb 23, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com <mailto:jancs...@yahoo.com>> wrote: Yeah, stuff like that we should be able to solve. I'm not for ditching the Tcl/Tk gui at all. The work you and Ivica have been doing seems to be going a long way to fix this. Great! I just really hope this goes back into vanilla somehow or can be split up into between libpd and a gui implementation, etc. Otherwise, I fear a return to DD.If I may chime in for a sec (pd-l2ork author here), there is absolutely no interest in dropping development of pd-l2ork anytime soon. Pd-L2Ork already has thousands of lines of code either altered or added and I have no intention of slowing down. Likewise, in part because I tried in the past, I have no interest in trying to get things merged into the core pd. I will very much welcome someone else's efforts to do so but knowing Miller's gargantuan goal of keeping backwards compatibility, I simply feel this approach is too time consuming for me to promote the rate of development I (and as it appears many others on this list) desire.
Additionally, DesireData never had any stable releases as far as I remember. matju may have used it for some of his projects, but when I played around with it there were major chunks of functionality missing, and easy crashes.
If someone wanted to port over DD's keyboard-only patching feature to Pd-l2ork, for example, you'd very quickly see the difference between the two. Because once it makes it into a release you'd be using the feature in a piece of stable software. That's an enormous difference.
-Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
