seems the thread has forked, hadn't seen this.

2015-12-22 18:52 GMT-02:00 Fred Jan Kraan <fjkraan@xs4all.nl>:

Sorry for all the confusion I have apparently created.

I feel quite responsible, so apologies as well

It seems that more words just means more misunderstanding. So here I attempt another approach:

sounds like a nice approach.

- trust me, I do not want to kill cyclone

I trust you

- cyclone backward compatibility is more important than Max/MSP compatibility,
- it will take some time to find out the best way to have both.

As long as we can think of a way to have both, I don't really have a problem. So everything sounds cool and my reply should end here.

But it didn't :) sorry, hope adding more words won't degrade the thread.

I don't agree backwards compatibility is more important than Max/MSP compatibility in cyclone, and feel that the mere such idea hurts the main purpose of the project. Now, that's just my opinion. I wonder if what you shared is just an opinion as well, it wasn't clear. If it's just an opinion, do you value different ones? I respect different opinions, but I'd have a problem with it if it'd be imposed as truth over other ones. Anyway, I believe you're just sharing an opinion, and that you're cool with other opinions, but I'm just being "that guy", who wants things to be cristal clear as also an approach to avoid misunderstandings.

Now we can start thinking about best way to have both ;)

cheers