|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 16, 2011 10:05 am|
|João Pais||Sep 18, 2011 11:08 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 18, 2011 12:31 pm|
|Miller Puckette||Sep 19, 2011 10:25 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 19, 2011 10:32 am|
|András Murányi||Sep 19, 2011 5:02 pm||.tcl|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 19, 2011 8:56 pm|
|IOhannes m zmoelnig||Sep 20, 2011 12:30 am|
|Andy Farnell||Sep 20, 2011 5:02 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 8:46 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 8:58 am|
|Miller Puckette||Sep 20, 2011 11:15 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 11:37 am|
|Miller Puckette||Sep 20, 2011 11:58 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 12:02 pm|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 12:33 pm|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Sep 20, 2011 1:19 pm|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Sep 20, 2011 1:44 pm|
|Subject:||Re: [PD-dev] removing path and libs from Pd-extended preferences GUI|
|From:||Hans-Christoph Steiner (ha...@at.or.at)|
|Date:||Sep 20, 2011 8:58:24 am|
Please give an example of how this would make this more confusing. My experience is the exact opposite and it is exactly this problem that leads me to want to remove those preferences. The are a big source of confusion and problems, and most Pd-extended users do not use them. I am not proposing removing them from Pd-vanilla, only Pd-extended. I think globally loading libraries is a broken idea.
If you remember in the days before Pd-extended, patches that relied on external libraries were mostly unsharable. It could take a long time to track down all the dependencies, etc. and you couldn't be sure which [wrap], [split], [prepend], [scale], etc. the patch needed. Having the configuration in the patch means at worst you know what you need to get it running.
At this point I've taught Pd to 10 year olds, high school kids, college kids, masters students, and all sorts of people in workshops, college courses, and patching circles. I also answer a lot of questions on email, on forums, and on IRC. It is from this experience that I am coming from on this issue. I have no desire to control people, I do have a strong desire to make Pd-extended very user friendly to newbies and a excellent editing experience for advanced users.
And those that like the Pd-vanilla way are welcome to use it, Pd-extended will remain compatible with patches from Pd-vanilla as long as I work on it. Of course, it is not possible to maintain 100% compatibility when going from Pd-extended to Pd-vanilla since extended includes many more objects. There is also pd-l2ork, desiredata, etc. for those who want different approaches.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:02 +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
Whenever I see the words "this would _make_ people"... alarm bells start ringing for me.
Yes, the proposed behaviour is perfectly correct, logical, and consistent. And utterly the wrong thing to do IMHO.
It would frighten off newcomers and disorientate students.
It's why we create the cushion of fairy stories for kids, to soften the harsh realities of the _actual_ world. Later on you learn that there isn't a magic library fairy that loads everything, but it helps you cope with the first steps.
If anybody made PD that broken out of the box it would require lots of work to fix in order to make it fit to teach with again.
On 2011-09-19 19:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I actually think this would make switching between vanilla and extended easier because it would make people use [import] or [declare] to load libs, then when using vanilla, you'll know which libraries the patch needs. Can you think of examples where it would make things more difficult?