On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:35:44PM +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:34 -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
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.
well, especially being an artistic tool, it shouldn't require the user to learn 1001 workarounds for trivial problems, nor should the user have to worry about obscure message vs. list problems ...
True. It guess you'd hope that it would be as easy as possible to make art with such a tool.
I'm always talking about what Pd could become and all I get answered is what Pd was meant to be.
i'm not sure, if anyone can say, what pd is meant to be ... but matju is right about one thing ... pd can't be improved, when everyone ignores it's weaknesses ("you don't want to load soundfiles clickfree", "you don't need to use tables on the x86_64 architecture") ...
I am not against making Pd better. I am not against talking about what features would be good in Pd. I am not against someone forking Pd and making something amazing and new and wonderful. I am not against somebody cloning all the ideas in Pd and making something which is a generic dataflow programming environment with all the bells and whilstles of a fully fledged programming language. That is all excellent - more great free software for all of us.
The thing I find tiresome is people's attitude and disrespect towards other developers when they find what they see as flaws in Pd. That is probably all in my head since nobody else seems to see it, and anyway, I'm not a developer so I should let others continue with their opinions and hostile attitudes, and leave it alone and just go back to making weird sounds with computers.
Apologies for the disturbance. Nothing to see, move along.
Best regards,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx