On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Andy Farnell wrote:
In spite of a relativist position the idea of "a correct interpretation"
of creativity is destroyed. It would make the most hardened cognitive
scientist take a step back and question deeply all they think they know.
Turns out there are as many kinds of
I've read a few good things about creativity.
There's this one beautiful book I have on my shelf here.
It's called "The creative process", edited by Brewster
Ghislen. It's a paperback that was 99p in a charity shop,
published by Mentor. These kind of treasures are rare
as pigs eggs. Get it if
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Chris McCormick wrote:
Ah, sorry for the confusion. I meant it to say that sometimes
constraining yourself, as with following the rules for writing haiku,
can help creativity. For some artists, there is nothing scarier than a
page with no words on it, or a canvas with no p
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 09:27:14AM +, Andrew Faraday wrote:
> I understand the haiku analogy is about code being short, eloquent and saying
> what needs to be said in relatively few words.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. I meant it to say that sometimes constraining
yourself, as with following th
;s too cold for that
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:01:41 -0500
From: ma...@artengine.ca
To: ch...@mccormick.cx
CC: pd-list@iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Chris McCormick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:10:24PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>> expressing yourself at an appropri
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:10:24PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
expressing yourself at an appropriate level of understanding, but
The appropriate level of understanding is the level at which people hear the
noise and want to party. Is there any more
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:10:24PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Chris McCormick wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:57:08PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>> In many cases it is replaced by the effort required to make
>>> a hack to replace the functionality of the missing
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:
* Perhaps it's not really OOP,
Ruby is definitely OOP, but what you want is not "OOP", it's Ruby itself.
* It looks like there's a lot of debate going around, it was, largely a
passing notion that started it. However I realize PD can do (probably)
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:57:08PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
In many cases it is replaced by the effort required to make
a hack to replace the functionality of the missing external.
Yep. In my experience, the cost-benefit balance usually falls on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010-12-16 00:55, Andrew Faraday wrote:
>
> I'm amazed just how much conversation this has caused, and I've only had a
> chance to skim-read all the replies that it's gained today so here's a couple
> of answers.
> * Perhaps it's not really OOP,
--- On Thu, 12/16/10, Chris McCormick wrote:
> From: Chris McCormick
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes"
> Cc: "PD List"
> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 8:32 AM
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:57:08PM
> -0800, Jonathan Wilk
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:57:08PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Chris McCormick wrote:
>
> > From: Chris McCormick
> > Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> > To: "Mathieu Bouchard"
> > Cc: "PD List"
> > Date: Thursday, D
--- On Thu, 12/16/10, Chris McCormick wrote:
> From: Chris McCormick
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> To: "Mathieu Bouchard"
> Cc: "PD List"
> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 5:40 AM
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:23:24AM
> -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wro
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:23:24AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> IMHO, directing your criticism at pd-vanilla alone is extremely
> unproductive. You have to accept the fact that doing real work in Pd may
> require a lot of externals. It's sad, but it's like that. I wouldn't use
> Pd if it
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
Well, you're certainly argumentative :-/
If that's a problem... then it's over.
___
| Mathieu Bouchard tél: +1.514.383.3801 Villeray, Montréal, QC
__
ang and closebang
> * a way to read a text file that's guaranteed to not generate a bad
> argument
> error
>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 12/16/10, brandon zeeb * wrote:
>
>
> From: brandon zeeb
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> To: "Mathieu Bou
Would you make use of the following if they were included in Pd vanilla?
* symbol2list
* initbang and closebang
* a way to read a text file that's guaranteed to not generate a bad argument
error
-Jonathan
--- On Thu, 12/16/10, brandon zeeb wrote:
From: brandon zeeb
Subject: Re: [PD] P
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
>
> do you, really ?
>>>
>>
>> Why are people getting offended here?
>>
>
> Am I getting offended ? How would you know, anyway ?
>
>
Well, you're certainly argumentative :-/
> Having to reinvent
As for named variables, [rl] and [sl] are local.
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> To: pd-list@iem.at
> Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:19 PM
> On 2010-12-15 15:38, brandon zeeb
> wr
learn some C
first.
Andrew
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:47:24 -0500
From: ma...@artengine.ca
To: lsut...@libero.it
CC: pd-list@iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
> I agree on this.. but why you say is it sad? It means Pd is modular like any
>
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
do you, really ?
Why are people getting offended here?
Am I getting offended ? How would you know, anyway ?
I'm simply attempting to avoid information overload,
Having to reinvent all that's outside of pd-vanilla is a more severe
information over
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
I agree on this.. but why you say is it sad? It means Pd is modular like any
sane programming 'environment'... You couldn't do much in a programming
language using it vanilla no? (well apart from assembler maybe)... IMHO
It's sad because many of the m
Sorry, gmail is hacking up the comment log. Comments are inline.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
>
> Say you compute a raised cosine window and store it in a table, this
>> table is used within one instance of a granular table
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
Say you compute a raised cosine window and store it in a table, this
table is used within one instance of a granular table reading voice
abstraction, 1-n of these abstractions are created at run time for
polyphony. Now you have N instances of this tabl
Agreed. By "everything" I should have been more precise:
1. tables
2. ui elements
3. values
4. send/receive
5. throw/catch
6. I'm probably forgetting something...
All of the above are available globally within a given patch without some
kind of namespacing (either with $0 or so
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
2. No control over abstraction (object) construction order and
lifecycle
What's that ?
3. No introspection (although not required, very helpful, and don't
tell me it's in some external, I don't care!)
Why do you don't care
#7: and on and on In most Pd patches, I see people using a few lookup tables
again and again (ie: mtof). As this is a complete waste of memory
Say you compute a raised cosine window and store it in a table, this table
is used within one instance of a granular table reading voice abstraction,
1-n o
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-12-15 13:51, brandon zeeb wrote:
1. Everything is global
hmm, i'd say the content of a message is as local as can be.
A patchcord by itself is also pretty local. Think of it as some kind of
function-pointer (or rather, inlet-pointer)
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:
You might want to have a look at Jamie Bullock's abstraction based
solution(which also went out on this list). Which was quite eloquent, if
a little limiting at first. It's a little way back from the dream of
dropping lines of OO code into pd but it's
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:
2. No control over abstraction (object) construction order and
lifecycle
What's that ?
3. No introspection (although not required, very helpful, and don't tell me
it's in some external, I don't care!)
Why do you don't care about externals that mi
On 2010-12-15 15:38, brandon zeeb wrote:
> The point here refers to the common use of $0. This isn't necessarily a bad
> thing (and is actually helpful in most cases), but can make certain things a
> little more difficult with regards to true OOP.
the point i was trying to make is: people usually
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
What exactly would "this" (#4) look like in Pd?
1. Everything is global
4. No concept of "this"
The use of the $0- prefix for receive-symbols ([r]) and variables ([v]).
It's a hack. I made a similar hack for making OOP in Tcl, but at le
The point here refers to the common use of $0. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing (and is actually helpful in most cases), but can make certain things a
little more difficult with regards to true OOP.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-12-15 13:51, brandon zeeb
han
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, brandon zeeb wrote:
From: brandon zeeb
Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
To: "Jonathan Wilkes"
Cc: "PD List"
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 3:04 PM
Many options have been proposed over the years, my favorite thus far is
[thiscanvas]
http://lists.pur
On 2010-12-15 13:51, brandon zeeb wrote:
>1. Everything is global
hmm, i'd say the content of a message is as local as can be.
mfsdr
IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and a
gt; --- On *Wed, 12/15/10, brandon zeeb * wrote:
>
>
> From: brandon zeeb
>
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
> To: "PD List"
> Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 1:51 PM
>
>
> In my experience with emulating OOP in Pd I've had moderate success. As a
What exactly would "this" (#4) look like in Pd?
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, brandon zeeb wrote:
From: brandon zeeb
Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
To: "PD List"
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 1:51 PM
In my experience with emulating OOP in Pd I've had mod
In my experience with emulating OOP in Pd I've had moderate success. As a
Java developer by day, I find myself attempting to recreate familiar
patterns within Pd (ie: usually IoC and Flyweight in Pd). Main problems
with recreating OOP in Pd are the following:
1. Everything is global
2. No
th it.
>
> All casting about ideas here, guys, but any ideas or guidance might be
> helpful.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:08:14 -0500
> > From: ma...@artengine.ca
> > To: jancs...@yahoo.com
> > CC: pd-l
I know Max has an [if] object that looks pretty much like your [if pitch...
etc.] example below.
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Andrew Faraday wrote:
From: Andrew Faraday
Subject: RE: [PD] PD OOP?
To: ma...@artengine.ca, jancs...@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-list@iem.at
Date: Wednesday, December 15
> From: ma...@artengine.ca
> To: jancs...@yahoo.com
> CC: pd-list@iem.at; jbtur...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PD] PD OOP?
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>
> > Jmax Phoenix does this. If I recall correctly it breaks the nested list
> > feature in Gridfl
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Jmax Phoenix does this. If I recall correctly it breaks the nested list
feature in Gridflow.
Well, it's a bit more complicated. Back then, GridFlow's nested lists were
written using braces {}, but they weren't GridFlow's nested lists, they
were su
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:
I've had a bit of a daydream about a further development in PD. Could an
expression be placed into the arguments of an object, or even a named
receive become part of expr
Written the way you wrote it, that would conflict with the means to access
a g
n the object is created, so it doesn't seem like it would have an effect
unless you recreate the object. (I'm curious what Jmax Phoenix does in this
regard.)
-Jonathan
--- On Mon, 12/13/10, Andrew Faraday wrote:
From: Andrew Faraday
Subject: [PD] PD OOP?
To: pd-list@iem.at
Date: M
Hey All
I've had a bit of a daydream about a further development in PD. Could an
expression be placed into the arguments of an object, or even a named receive
become part of expr
I suppose the dream would be to have something like
[osc~ (pitch * 2)]
instead of
[r pitch]
|
[* 2]
|
[osc~]
o
45 matches
Mail list logo
