On 02/23/2014 08:15 PM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:



On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com> wrote:


Yeah, stuff like that we should be able to solve. I'm not for ditching the Tcl/Tk gui at all. The work you and Ivica have been doing seems to be going a long way to fix this. Great! I just really hope this goes back into vanilla somehow or can be split up into between libpd and a gui implementation, etc. Otherwise, I fear a return to DD.

If I may chime in for a sec (pd-l2ork author here), there is absolutely no interest in dropping development of pd-l2ork anytime soon. Pd-L2Ork already has thousands of lines of code either altered or added and I have no intention of slowing down. Likewise, in part because I tried in the past, I have no interest in trying to get things merged into the core pd. I will very much welcome someone else's efforts to do so but knowing Miller's gargantuan goal of keeping backwards compatibility, I simply feel this approach is too time consuming for me to promote the rate of development I (and as it appears many others on this list) desire.

Additionally, DesireData never had any stable releases as far as I remember.  matju may have used it for some of his projects, but when I played around with it there were major chunks of functionality missing, and easy crashes.

If someone wanted to port over DD's keyboard-only patching feature to Pd-l2ork, for example, you'd very quickly see the difference between the two.  Because once it makes it into a release you'd be using the feature in a piece of stable software.  That's an enormous difference.

-Jonathan