I prefer PD with a small GUI, it's better for CPU and GPU.
Jack
Le 10 oct. 07 à 16:07, marius schebella a écrit :
I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people it makes sense to layout their interface independently from their code. design is so important for a graphical user interface! I heard this so often "I can't share my patch, because only I know,
how to use it". patches without a user interface for the run-mode are not sharable. I am not talking about patches with only an on/off button... pd is very limited in that regards and I really would wish pd would
make more improvement into that direction. marius.Kevin McCoy 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
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list