Hi Joao,Those features won't be available in Pd-extended-- the GUI part depends on a library called tkpath which Pd-extended doesn't use. The tentative plan is to port Pd-l2ork's GUI to Qt, leveraging QGraphicsview or QML. The features I've added should be common to any modern 2d API that does "managed" graphics. That includes Qt, SVG, probably GTK as well, but unfortunately not Tk. -Jonathan
On Friday, November 28, 2014 5:28 PM, João Pais <jmmmpais@googlemail.com> wrote:
#yiv8787092339 body {font-size:13px;}Hello, I haven't been using Pd regularly for a while now. But as I remember, the biggest disadvantage of data structures isn't really that they're "buggy" (i.e. have some issues that usually don't happen in other pd objects, as Jonathan listed), but that there are very few possibleoperations. Any patching requires lots of work to do things that on other parts of Pd happen very easily. Looking at the ftm library, could be a way of a goal of what could be done using data structues (not even to mention the audio part). Also, because of the gui issues, data structures can't really be relied upon for non-slow (i.e. medium and fast) graphics. It just takes lots of cpu (at least it does on my windows machines).
There is also the steep learning curve, but I've seen gradually more people working with them, so that generates a positive loop. I don't know if my tutorial helped much (based on the ones of F Barknecht and G Karman), but every step counts.One can also have a look at my abstractions in extra/jmmmp, several of them are made with data structures - including [matrixctrl], quite useful as a gui for [iemmatrix/mtx_mul~].(btw, I was just trying to upload my tutorial to puredata.info, but the website gave an error. I'll keep trying) Jonathan, when will your new features be available in Pd Extended? I could try to update my tutorial with them. I'm not using linux anymore, so I won't be working with pdl2ork. Best, Joao
On 11/23/2014 11:26 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
don't even remember cause I stopped messing with it because of them, but I did discuss about them sometime ago here on the list, with joão pais, the bottom line is that they were indeed buggy like that and that you had to cope with it.
Well, there are a few areas I can think of:
It's difficult to figure out how to make that scalar behavior in gops more sensible. It's tricky because gop currently acts like a "viewport" somewhat in the svg or opengl sense, yet it doesn't clip or even respect the "size" attributes if the subpatch is open. "Put" menu array sizing and [table] widgetbehavior are affected by this, so if scalar gop appearance were simplified then garrays would have to be decoupled from that behavior.
-Jonathan
cheers
2014-11-17 2:50 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com:
On 11/16/2014 10:55 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
my two cents is that the data structures are still a bit buggy to work on. Just hoped they'd be more stable, other than that, can't relate to the commotion, cheers
What kinds of bugs are you running into?
-Jonathan
2014-11-13 13:45 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list pd-list@lists.iem.at:
It's certainly possible. There's a Pd-l2ork script for creating a "vanilla" tarball with the l2ork changes in it, so I guess you could try dropping the src and extra from that into libpd's pure-data directory and see what happens. But I don't know much about libpd.
-Jonathan
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:38 AM, i go bananas <hard.off@gmail.com> wrote:
in relation to Pd-l2ork,
guys, what's the status of having a 'libpd' for l2ork??? is that possible?
sorry for going off topic...but it is something i have wanted to ask for ages.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
IOhannes, that's kinda what i thought.... but really, come on...pd's interface is it's weakest point. When miller started working on the data structures, libpd and all that didn't even exist. But now, we can just farm out that sort of stuff to other programs.
Compared to the amount of effort it takes to learn them, and how effective they actually are, data structures are just too un-economical. in nearly 15 years of their existence, i think i can still count on both hands how many good implementations of them i have seen.
look, i LOVE pd and couldn't live without it....but it just seems like any minute spent on data structures is a minute that could be way better spent on other stuff.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:54 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 11/12/2014 03:33 PM, i go bananas wrote:
couldn't that work be put to better use?
depends on your definition of "better".
if i understand correctly, "data structures" have been _the_ motivation for writing Pd (as opposed to continue with max), so i think we owe them :-)
gfmrdsa IOhannes