2012/3/9 Mathieu Bouchard
<matju@artengine.ca>
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime, thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
Nearly none of the Pd professionals use Pd «fulltime».
Yeah. The question is, do you understand the point I was trying to make with my less professional English? Then I'm also interested if you agree with it.
I don't necessarily... « à temps plein » or « full time » means as a main occupation. The definition is variable, but in my country, this is normally assumed to mean 30 hours per week in a sustained way, especially 50 weeks per year. Even when including all the non-patching activities that revolve around Pd or mostly-Pd projects, very few Pd professionals put that much time in Pd. Are there any at all ?
If you don't mean that, then it's probably not a matter of your skills of English, but rather about stating your opinion precisely enough.
Quite possible, really.
But yes, I agree with what I think that you are saying. But I think that there is a continuüm of time investment that gradually makes the learning more worth the effort, and it begins at a tiny amount of part-time such as just a few hours per week.
I'll try to elaborate more my original point. Phenomena like Pd have kind of "low end" (which is where that barrier of entry is), those parts/applications which are easy to understand and to hack by beginners or amateurs. Then they have a certain "high end", the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the "high end", leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated. I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was that Pd shall keep the "low end" accessible and up-to-date. (IMO, a helpful UI is one factor, good help system and tutorials are another, etc.)
András