Yo,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:43:07PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
There is a third option: people can release libraries like 'cyclone'
as libdirs. Then you could just download the right one and drop it
into place to install it.
Cool, I will check out libdirs and see if I can package my s-abstractions stuff like that. That said, I wouldn't be dropping a binary version of [cyclone/prepend] into my system any time soon. Libdirs don't solve what is a fundementally bad idea - using [cyclone/prepend] in place of [list prepend].
This reminds me of a similar discussion that happens in Java-land.
Lots of people still swear by Java 1.0. Sure, you can do what you
need, but newer versions of Java are widespread and have more
shoulders of giants included to stand on.
I like to think that I'm not a luddite, and that I embrace progress as much as any technophile, but to cast pd-extended in the role of "next best thing to happen to Pd" is arguable. I for one definately don't see pd-extended as the "newest version of Pd". I see it as an alternative distribution which provides lots of extra functionality.
I am a big fan of Python's "batteries included" philosophy, which I think is what you are advocating with pd-extended, but it should be noted that the Python maintainers draw the line somewhere. They don't compile every single possible library out there into a giant monolithic release.
Since you mention Java let me frame my argument in terms of that language. If I was writing some code in Java I would always prefer using classes from the core of Java, over using 3rd party libraries, wherever possible. I would do this because if I want to port my Java program to a webserver, or embedded system, or mobile phone, I am much more likely to be able to easily port it if I use the core Java language. Additionally, if I release my source code, others will be able to use it far more easily if its only dependency is the core of Java. The less dependencies there are, the more robust my library becomes in terms of places where it can be ported. To me this is the identical situation to what we've been talking about. If users start using [cyclone/prepend] in their patches instead of Pd's built-in [list prepend], then they immediately make their patches less portable to other Pds. That is all I am saying: favour Pd builtin's wherever possible so that your patches will be as widely distributable as possible.
Sorry to bang on about this, but I am still arguing this point because I want to make sure that your bad advice doesn't influence other Pd users into making bad decisions and making everyone's life more difficult. I am not trying to be harsh here, but rather I am trying to be honest about my motivation for persisting with this thread.
Thanks again for all your hard work with pd-extended, though! Definately appreciated (even though I don't use it, just like you don't use RedHat).
Best,
Chris.