Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
peace!
peace++! ;)
frank, I don't want you to fade out on that discussion, because I think it is more than just the pddp problem and it is an interesting discussion for the future.
'pd core without externals makes no sense/cannot be separated from externals.' what do you think?
I wouldn't completely subscribe to this view. Currently MSP/Vanilla/core Pd is the greatest common divisor (and the only one.)
at the moment the externals are programmer libraries (packed together because they were created by a developer). But in the future there will be "standard libraries" which do not exist yet. these standard libraries will be structured like standard libraries in other programming languages. they will have clear naming conventions and everybody will be happy. what do you think?
We share the same vision of a bright future. Unfortunatly at present much things are still missing. As I wrote in my mails in the "libraries" thread, extensions to Pd in the form of externals and abstractions currently are a bit messy to set up. Some people use the class names directly "[niagara]", others use them with a prefix "[zexy/niagara]" (even pd-extended users do this differently), while others don't have "niagara" at all.[*]
While I agree with Hans and many others, that in the end namespaces are the way to go, currently it's a bit of a mess. That's why I'm indeed doing some propaganda to restrict onself with using externals in help files (and so some extent in abstraction libraries, too), because it forces people to set up their systems in a certain way, where the final way isn't decided yet. And sometimes the two currently most popular ways (with namespace and without) are even conflicting.
[*] Actually before pd-extended it was a bit simpler, as people were either using [niagara] or no [niagara] at all. That didn't work for [counter], though ...
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__