I remember when Castonguay came here in 2008, and in the occasion there were 4 or 5 Alexandres in the same room - it was kinda confusing :O
2015-03-09 2:40 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com>: > " > > *there is no harm in having "uzi" and "uzi" and "uzi", as long as it > isclear which one is currently used (something Pd still lacks, despite**hans' > great work in the past).*" > > Not sure what you mean here. I guess the worst is just being kinda > unstable to know which one will actually be loaded... and how this > conflicts are affecting even the help files. I'm not gonna repeat all the > issues, but I see it's kinda harmful as it is. > > But then, you could deal with this sort of thing is by having the name of > the library before the object, like [cyclone/uzi]... > > "*what you have gained is a centralized distribution of a decentralized > development process that has **broken any old patch by discarding > backwards compatibility.*" > > backwards compatibility is not something that's being actually maintained > in extended. It's been kind of a hectic development, some libraries are > removed and inserted, and just making it possible to load "Uzi" as "uzi" > created new issues as I've raised - like not being able to call kalashnikov > as uzi anymore. > > So I do have a different opinion, I believe it's not to hard to eliminate > some noise that eventually shows up and avoid some conflicts, it looks to > me as if it is for the best. > > but then, it'd be good to see some real talk about the future of extended, > or how to make it easier to add libraries from extended into vanilla before > sharing opinions. > > cheers > > 2015-03-08 17:50 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@iem.at>: > >> On 03/07/2015 11:27 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: >> > >> > But if you load kalashnikov first, well, now you won't get cyclone's >> > version when you type "uzi", but kalashnikov... >> > >> > so, well, kinda confusing... >> >> yes, very confusing. >> but not something unheard of, and i think humans are quite good at >> dealing with such things. >> imagine, one of the organizers of Pd~con 2007 is called "Alexandre" and >> one of the organizers of Pd~con 2009 is called "Alexandre". >> one is inclined to think that they are the same (after all, they do >> similar things and go by the same name), but it turns out that in fact >> they are totally incompatible (crashing *your* place in Montreal might >> make me end up sleeping on the street!)¹ >> >> > I'd vouch for trying and eliminating the redundancy and equal names >> > somehow. I'd suggest killing the alias name of kalashnikov, it'd solve >> all >> > that for Pd Extended. >> >> and get rid of cyclone's [uzi], as it already has [Uzi]. >> >> > >> > but again, useless and pointless discussion if we're not dealing with an >> > update of Pd Extended right now. >> > >> >> no, i think that the discussion is important, as it shows one of the big >> problems with the architecture of a monolithic Pd-extended. >> >> the question is: do "we" (the hypothetical PdX maintainers) provide a >> consistent system where everything is nice and easy; or do we just >> provide a largish collection of libraries for all kind of problems. >> >> i think the 1st option is *totally* out of scope. >> >> the fact is, that PdX currently *is* a largish collection of libraries, >> sharing a significant overlap (both in functionality and in naming). >> >> it would require multiple fulltime jobs to sort this pile into >> consistent stack (and it would take a similar number of workpower to >> keep it in that state!). >> and once you have eliminated all redundancies, what you have gained is a >> centralized distribution of a decentralized development process that has >> broken any old patch by discarding backwards compatibility. >> >> just *having* such a distribution does not mean that anybody will use it >> (e.g. those people that do not upgrade from PdX-0.42 to PdX-0.43 >> because...) nor that anybody will *develop* components (externals,...) >> for it (apart from those fulltime jobbers). >> >> my point has always been that we should *embrace* the multitude in Pd, >> rather than eliminate it. >> >> there is no harm in having "uzi" and "uzi" and "uzi", as long as it is >> clear which one is currently used (something Pd still lacks, despite >> hans' great work in the past). >> >> >> having said all that, Pd-l2ork probably already does a decent job in >> providing a consistent distribution (but i haven't checked recently; and >> of course, l2ork/dsis also *added* a few new objects the functionality >> of which is already included in PdX - so not exactly minimizing the pool >> of objects either) - most likely because it *is* powered by >> institutional backing (see "fulltime jobber"). >> >> >> >> >> >> ¹ actually i don't know how often you and alexandre have been confused; >> i know for sure that a lot of people mistake me for hans-christoph >> although the name is really not *that* similar, and we often shared very >> differing opinions. do you have any suggestions for my case :-)? >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list