Because they don't work well (see below).
They are awkwardly named, very limited [OSCroute /test/myname] does not work, and you can't "set" the name to route.
All in all the current OSC is useless (or at least painfully inefficient) for working with dynamic OSC trees, they work great only for static ones.
I think this is really needed for pixelTANGO and RRADICAL so I'm hoping we can collaborate on a design (I have already mentioned one) which was basically around OSCroute, and dumpOSC and sendOSC should be deprecated so that we use normal PD sockets...
Also there is lots missing, like subtree querying, range of param returns, and all the stuff that OSC is meant to do in a bidirectional socket.
.b..
Chris McCormick wrote:
In this case, I think it would be a good idea to try and get the OSC objects that everyone is using into Miller's Pd. Why write new ones using liblo when there are ones that already work?
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list