A programming environment should encourage people to program in a way
that not only works, but also is clearly legible to people who have
never seen that program before. This makes it much easier to reuse
and maintain code, and that leads to much less duplicated effort.
That means everyone can benefit from the faster progress.
.hc
On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:07 AM, marius schebella wrote:
I don't understand people complaining about additional features.
you don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people
it makes sense to layout their interface independently from their
code. design is so important for a graphical user interface! I heard this so often "I can't share my patch, because only I know,
how to use it". patches without a user interface for the run-mode
are not sharable. I am not talking about patches with only an on/off button... pd is very limited in that regards and I really would wish pd would
make more improvement into that direction. marius.Kevin McCoy wrote:
The Pd graph-on-parent makes more sense IMHO because it uses
existing Pd mechanisms for encapsulation and encourages patchers to
modularize their programs.100% agreed, that is why I thought "umm... what's so special about
this presentation mode?" when I saw that page. To me that should be
planned into the program. If your patches are messy for performance, code
cleaner, use subpatches, etc, no excuses for that as far as I see. Sends and
receives for gui objects have been there since I started.. I guess I
wasn't really excited about any of that stuff :) but then again maybe I
misunderstand.. km
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic