The one part of presentation that I was intrigued by is the idea of
separating the interface from the implementation. I think it's
interesting to explore the idea, I just think that having the only
connection be that little fade effect when switching is not really a
strong enough connection. It would only be at all effective with a
handful of elements, more than that, I think it would become hard to
track.
.hc
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Andy Farnell wrote:
I'm a bit torn on this. I actually like the concept, but you're right, like all good things that make life easy they tend to erode discipline and structure. The patch messy and sweep it all under the rug philosophy is probably very appealing to many.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:27:47 -0400 "Kevin McCoy" km.takewithyou@gmail.com 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
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man
for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General
Smedley Butler