On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 06:06:52PM +0200, Cyrille Henry wrote: > > yes, i prefer fudi to. > but on small hardware, like the one i was developing 12 years ago, OSC was > faster. > not because of the reduced bandwidth, but because of the conversion between > ascii character to float. > but that time is over now, and this conversion should be quicker even on > "small" hardware. > > cheers > c >
I agree - this is still a problem for pd~, which uses FUDI. I've been thinking for years about making a binary form of FUDI: f <4 byte float> s <zero-terminated character string> ; , One thing I keep wondering is how, in netsend/netreceive, to name this so that it won't get confused with raw binary. Maybe it justneeds a name (BUDI?) cheers M _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
