It is already linked from that site.
On Sep 23, 2014 12:27 PM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe the software portal could be a subdomain or integrated on the pure-data.info site along with vanilla & extended.On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Ivica Bukvic <ico@vt.edu> wrote:True. It is trying to be to many things-- an ensemble and a software portal.
On Sep 23, 2014 12:04 PM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, this is great news. I didn't mean to sound pessimistic earlier, just realistic.My 2cents, though is that the l2ork website is hard to navigate :DOn Sep 23, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Ivica Bukvic <ico@vt.edu> wrote:Well, there is a concerted effort on the pd-l2ork side of things. We now technically have 3 devs contributing code regularly to git and 3 additional contributors.
On Sep 23, 2014 11:14 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:I had to bring up semantics because "developer" means alot of different things to alot of different people.Also, I didn't want to bring up vanilla versus non-vanilla, just pointing out that the number of people who could help Hans put out a new version of extended is rather low. IMO a languishing extended is bad news for Pd in general as it's the go to distribution for most people using Pd ... but that's probably for another debate. We all work on what's important to us, I'm just sad again to see that the priorities don't seem to match up with a concerted joint effort, at least as compared to my experience working with OpenFrameworks. But of course what's considered a "concerted, joint effort" is also up to interpretation :DHopefully we'll have a development meet up at some point soon.I personally feel guilty seeing things like this come up because I have the *ability* to do it, but I don't have the time when trying to balance life, work, & art. Honestly, this is when I know I'm probably getting in too deep ...This is why I suggested "graduate students". At this point, up keep and versioning should be supported by some sort of institution, if possible, and by people who could be rotated in and out.On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Ivica Bukvic <ico@vt.edu> wrote:Well, I guess you can call me a "developer," whatever that means--I don't care that much about titles. Yet, I would argue that as far as low level stuff is concerned in recent years pd-l2ork has certainly pushed the envelope in terms of core development. Even the feature that has earned me the title in quotations delves so deep into the core that currently it cannot be implemented in either vanilla or extended without significant changes even though it retains full backwards compatibility. I would also argue it is essential and offers a slew of features that are unavailable in any other implementation of presets.
Pd-l2ork's greatest deterrent is exclusivity to Linux, which was initially a conscious decision to allow for faster development while addressing the lack of manpower. But that is about to change once we complete port to Qt library. We already transitioned to Tkpath quite a while ago which allowed us to use a full SVG-based canvas, so I have no doubt we will be able to do this again. Once this is done, we won't have to circumnavigate exceptions Tk library requires in order to be compliant with different platforms and I would argue in turn that will result in faster development. So, if you are really interested in pushing the development of non-vanilla pd I think you should heed some of Jonathan's advice and look for ways how community can work together in combining the "best of" and engaging developers and "developers" alike who have shown dedication to the cause. But before that can be accomplished, the community should consider agreeing on design choices. For instance, pd-l2ork came into existence because it focuses on more nimble development at the expense of potential loss of backwards compatibility (even though after 4 years of development the only incompatibility we infatuated is correcting buggy positioning of iemgui objects, which is cosmetic in nature) because a good chunk of that compatibility stems from buggy implementations that stuck around long enough that they became a part of the standard (e.g. iemgui's buggy positioning of objects that are arbitrarily offset from their x and y positions, as reported by the pd script), which is unfortunate.
Best,
Ico
On Sep 23, 2014 9:21 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:I disagree. Your example lists what? 2 more developers? I'm talking about "developers" as in people working the C code, build scripts, tcl/tk etc aka people who could, theoretically, help push out a new Pd-extended release. True, we have plenty of people working on externals, but this is a problem for someone who can go deeper.I still maintain that the number of low level developers to overall users (non-developers) is relatively low.On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:However, your description of the user/developer ratio doesn't ring true to me. There's actually a surplus of developers and development energy-- I count two implementations of presets in the last year or two (in Pd-l2ork and the Chocolate et Coffee lib) which are in addition to however many already exist on svn and the Pd forum.
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list