On Dec 9, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I'm not a big fan of [expr]'s syntax since it is custom syntax
that is not used anywhere else in Pd.A precedent has to start somewhere :)
I believe that the goal is to make an interface that is effortless
to use rather than try to be more dataflowish than the pope. The
goal is not to pass more messages and use more objects and
connections just to show off what's the concept of dataflow and how
deeply pd follows it. The goal is still to make patches work with
as little effort as possible.I also believe that there are plenty of pd classes that have at
least one element of syntax that is not used anywhere else in pd.
It also depends on how you look at pd: are two occurrences in two
very related classes, counting as one occurrence, or as two? and
why would it be counted that way?
Too often "reducing effort" is equated with typing shortcuts and
things along that line. I think putting everything into the [psql]
object box is version of this. Things are a bigger concerns in the
push to reduce effort are:
- reducing bugs!
- reducing time spent learning new objects
- reducing time spent remembering how to use objects
- making flexible programming easier rather than basic programming
faster
.hc
Instead, you could achieve the same result by using the interface
I described, then embedded your SQL statements with [sql] into a
subpatch or an abstraction. This just about any regular Pd user
knows how to do.But it's better to not have to do that.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin