Re: [PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. The high-end is the avant-garde Peace Indeed. 2012/3/13 Mathieu Bouchard ma...@artengine.ca Le 2012-03-13 à 02:09:00, András Murányi a écrit : Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the amateurs was low-end. Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to low-end and high-end I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more. To me, the use of expressions low-end and high-end was clearly something idiosyncratic, expressions that aren't used in the same way outside of this conversation, just like one would invent new words in a casual manner. I don't see them as corresponding to low art and high art. __**__** __ | Mathieu BOUCHARD - téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 - Montréal, QC ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
Hi, I'm actually hoping that there is some mistranslation here (although what would Deleuze say about that eh?). High Low Art - I thought that was played out a lng time a g o. Really unsure where you're coming from Andras and that's with giving you the benefit of the doubt (my Hungarian is appalling btw) but you are most definitely misquoting me. BTW- I never at any point said I have a problem with 'advanced topics'. Ever. Well tbh I prefer the 'here's 3 objects now go and form a laptop ensemble' approach to coding but that's nothing to do with Luddism. As a 'full-time' 'professional' 'artist' who 'works' exlusively with 'Pd' as well as doing 'research' in 'academia' I am 'happily' 'high' most of the 'time' with occasional cranky but insightful 'low' moments. Still don't really get your point, sorry. Julian ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
2012/3/12 Julian Brooks jbee...@gmail.com Hi, I'm actually hoping that there is some mistranslation here (although what would Deleuze say about that eh?). High Low Art - I thought that was played out a lng time a g o. Really unsure where you're coming from Andras and that's with giving you the benefit of the doubt (my Hungarian is appalling btw) but you are most definitely misquoting me. Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the amateurs was low-end. Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to low-end and high-end I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more. Clearly, you were talking about something else when I, sort of by-the-way, said Pd's editing and programming features shall stay open and continue to support the less professional and then all will be good. I meant nothing more, nothing less, and especially nothing personal. BTW- I never at any point said I have a problem with 'advanced topics'. Ever. Well tbh I prefer the 'here's 3 objects now go and form a laptop ensemble' approach to coding but that's nothing to do with Luddism. As a 'full-time' 'professional' 'artist' who 'works' exlusively with 'Pd' as well as doing 'research' in 'academia' I am 'happily' 'high' most of the 'time' with occasional cranky but insightful 'low' moments. Still don't really get your point, sorry. Julian peace, András ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
Le 2012-03-13 à 02:09:00, András Murányi a écrit : Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the amateurs was low-end. Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to low-end and high-end I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more. To me, the use of expressions low-end and high-end was clearly something idiosyncratic, expressions that aren't used in the same way outside of this conversation, just like one would invent new words in a casual manner. I don't see them as corresponding to low art and high art. __ | Mathieu BOUCHARD - téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 - Montréal, QC___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:39, Mathieu Bouchard ma...@artengine.ca wrote: Le 2012-03-09 à 19:58:00, András Murányi a écrit : Then they have a certain high end, the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the high end, leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated. Many projects are driven by the high-end. It's necessary. They're also driven by the high-end. Many low-end features start existing because high-end features first allowed them to exist. If someone makes an easy-to-use polyphonic synth, this synth might be using dynamic-patching features, perhaps new ones or new ways of using the old ones. This needs high-end development. In projects like Pd, development has always to be multi-focus. It isn't just that. Even in the case of unrelated features, high-end features are what keeps the high-end users around, and they're the ones who write externals and abstractions, both for themselves and for others. Low-end users don't produce nearly as much low-end abstractions and externals as high-end users do. It's that the very ability to figure out what should go in a given abstr/extern, and what should be left out, and all the strategies of how to specify args, etc., those are all skills that are characteristics of high-end users. Every such skill moves you towards the higher-end. At some point I had to realise that I couldn't just ask students to make abstractions... I mean that I couldn't just teach them the mechanics of $1 arguments and $0-foo local variables. They still haven't thought about how to figure out which ideas should become abstractions and which shouldn't, etc. ; they'd need something of the order of « Introduction to programming », perhaps several semesters, but I remember that in university, after the 4th such course, students only began to figure out what could be a good library vs a bad one. So, definitely, Pd users who didn't go through the equivalent of those courses (or of some other related courses) rarely would publish a library that other people would want to use. So, it's important that high-end users keep on making low-end components. It's also that everybody needs to use some of those « low-end components »... there are lots of things common to all users. And even though high-end users can more easily tolerate design problems and bugs and various difficulties, they don't necessarily like them. I agree. And NB when I advocate the low-end, I'm by no means against the high-end. The high-end is the avant-garde, so to say. It's not an either-or game. I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was that Pd shall keep the low end accessible and up-to-date. Actually, I wonder which features you have in mind when you say that. Hmm. Definitely the GUI comes to my mind first, the put menu-bar, autocompletion, search, zooming, the magic glass - these all make it more accessible and user friendly. I guess, beginners and amateurs (like me) need these more than experts do. Yea, this is what we call in our wonderfully expressive Hungarian language szőrszálhasogatás :o) What I mean about that, is that for making your point, saying full-time isn't simply a small exaggeration. Otherwise, I don't think I'd have made a fuss. My original wording was professional. Professional, full-time, or high-end, all different essays to verbalize my fuzzy idea. András ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] High end, low end (was : some other topic)
Le 2012-03-09 à 19:58:00, András Murányi a écrit : Then they have a certain high end, the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the high end, leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated. Many projects are driven by the high-end. It's necessary. They're also driven by the high-end. Many low-end features start existing because high-end features first allowed them to exist. If someone makes an easy-to-use polyphonic synth, this synth might be using dynamic-patching features, perhaps new ones or new ways of using the old ones. This needs high-end development. In projects like Pd, development has always to be multi-focus. It isn't just that. Even in the case of unrelated features, high-end features are what keeps the high-end users around, and they're the ones who write externals and abstractions, both for themselves and for others. Low-end users don't produce nearly as much low-end abstractions and externals as high-end users do. It's that the very ability to figure out what should go in a given abstr/extern, and what should be left out, and all the strategies of how to specify args, etc., those are all skills that are characteristics of high-end users. Every such skill moves you towards the higher-end. At some point I had to realise that I couldn't just ask students to make abstractions... I mean that I couldn't just teach them the mechanics of $1 arguments and $0-foo local variables. They still haven't thought about how to figure out which ideas should become abstractions and which shouldn't, etc. ; they'd need something of the order of « Introduction to programming », perhaps several semesters, but I remember that in university, after the 4th such course, students only began to figure out what could be a good library vs a bad one. So, definitely, Pd users who didn't go through the equivalent of those courses (or of some other related courses) rarely would publish a library that other people would want to use. So, it's important that high-end users keep on making low-end components. It's also that everybody needs to use some of those « low-end components »... there are lots of things common to all users. And even though high-end users can more easily tolerate design problems and bugs and various difficulties, they don't necessarily like them. I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was that Pd shall keep the low end accessible and up-to-date. Actually, I wonder which features you have in mind when you say that. Yea, this is what we call in our wonderfully expressive Hungarian language szőrszálhasogatás :o) What I mean about that, is that for making your point, saying full-time isn't simply a small exaggeration. Otherwise, I don't think I'd have made a fuss. __ | Mathieu BOUCHARD - téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 - Montréal, QC ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
