On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:13:50AM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
I would like that those who care, go read the original thread, and they'll
Sure, sounds good. I think we might be the only ones reading though. ;)
It could be that I took your reply to David as referencing our previous conversation on pd-dev in error, and if that's the case as you seem to indicate, then I apologise for the second time for that blunder and my insensitive reply. Since it's come up again though, I'd like to re-iterate what I was trying to say in those emails, because I think it's important.
You have often expressed exasperation at the shortcomings of Pd in terms of using it as a programming language. What I have been trying to say is that maybe the original intention of the Pd language isn't to be a fully fledged programming language, but instead an artist's tool with some dataflow programming-like features. I think it would ease some of your concerns about Pd if you saw it that way, and maybe you would ease back a bit on the sometimes hostile attacks and just write code to make it do what you want instead. There's no point in saying that the horse doesn't have a long enough trunk, if the horse doesn't even pretend to be an elephant.
Yrs, amicably,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx