Hallo, Steffen hat gesagt: // Steffen wrote:
This is all quite good. But i have one comment wrt. the Black and
White DogmaOn 29/04/2007, at 17.58, Frank Barknecht wrote:
The Black and White Dogma
[cnv] is bad, "comment" is good.
In the reasoning from The Short Dogma it uses the argument that
Pd is a graphical language, Pd patches aren't read word by word,
but as as collection of object groups layed out in certain reoccuring patterns or idioms.why i think it make much sense to use coloured backgrounds (or [cnv])
as part of the graphical language to improve readability. It should
of cause not conflict with the other dogma's, but instead be compared
to using tab-indention in written code.
I forgot this one:
Dogma Zero
You should only follow your own Dogmata.
Every self-respecting Dogma-collection has to be provocative (and shouldn't be taken too serious). The B&W Dogma definitely is a style question. IMO color is best used to indicate where the action is: sliders, toggles etc.
As a comment replacement [cnv] aren't that good, for one because you can_only_write_with_funny_underscores and more importantly, because they are cumbersome to create and edit. Comments should come easy, otherwise people won't comment.
And for emphasising certain code paths, subpatches probably are even better:
[inlet] | [pd filter-notes] | [pd transpose] | [pd harmonize] | [outlet]
I guess I should extend the B&W Dogma like this:
The Black and White Dogma
[cnv] is bad. "comment" is good. [pd] is better.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__