indeed, that's why I wrote it -- Max and Pd are based on many design principles that are far from universally shared; by making them explicit I might help some readers think about their own different ones -- mine shouldn't be more than a reference point.
cheers Miller
I hope as many people who read that paper can read it critically. Several of the ideas contained therein are detrimental and harmful to the perception and evolution of Pd/Max. Things like: Max isn't a "programming environment", and even less a "real-world programming environment"; features are left out because Max users aren't professional programmers; Max is "lacking any notion of linear control-flow" (whatever that means???); Max doesn't have scoping because musicians don't need it; the idea that object-oriented programming is all about inheritance; elegance in code has nothing to do with making creative music; the computer-science crowd preaches that reuse of code is essential to communicating knowledge; Max somehow opposed itself to computer science; "The computer should ideally feel in the musician's hands like a musical instrument, needing only to be tuned up and then played" (!!!); etc... well I should put a (!!!) after each of those phrases. If you need any justification from me for any item(s) on this list I will provide it (if I did it all upfront, it could be long like a paper).
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801, Montr?al, Qu?bec
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list