On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Mike Moser-Booth wrote:

I've always thought that what Max considers standalones is kind of shady. They're just the patch and Max Runtime bundled together. The only difference is that the patch(es) used are put together in a single file (which Max calls a collective, but anyone with Max can open on their own and edit) and that the Runtime automatically loads the patch.

What's the problem ? The difference is in the expectations. If you come from a QuickBASIC MSDOS background and were picking standalone over the version that used Brown42."EXE", the difference you were picking was in the bundling of precompiled code into a file that already was containing your own compiled code anyway. Thus the only difference was in the linking options : it didn't make the difference between compiling and not compiling, and in that sense, Max standalones don't have to make that difference, when the job is a job of bundling.

It more just gives the "impression" of a standalone executable.

It's a standalone executable. (what are you talking about ?)

it's really not much different than just running the patch normally.

That's what the GOAL is.

If there was another goal, you'd have a checkbox somewhere or a different dialogue that takes you through a different process, such as DRM, obfuscation, compilation/optimisation, or whatever else that is a means to reach the goal that you want to reach.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list