One last question:

Does Max/MSP retain all the same class interfaces for version 4/5 classes in later versions of Max/MSP? For example, is Max 7 guaranteed to be backwards compatible with all the internal classes of Max 4.5?

-Jonathan

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:13 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:

2016-02-20 17:11 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list <pd-list@lists.iem.at>:

Is there actual Pd code for Max 6+ classes somewhere behind this 40+ message thread?

The thread was first about compiling the nettles and also did comport parallel discussions about how to implement abstractions that behaved like externals. The discussion about including new objects started very late on this thread and I opened another one to discuss it, but it didn't catch on. I'm giving it up and joining back here.

The last discussion started by Fred saying he couldn't accept my pull request of a new [pong] object, which is not available in Max 5, so it's a Max6+ feature. In his response, Fred mentioned a couple of things, one of which being: "Cyclone is one of the few libraries with a closed set of objects; only those part of Max/MSP, arbitrary set around version 4.6 or 5." - maybe the problem with Fred not accepting pong is because of that, I can only infere.

Another thing he mentioned is that objects with the same functionality from other libraries should not be implemented in cyclone. I don't think that way and Ivica +1 do not either. One way or another, I don't know of any objects that have the same functionalities as pong (wrapper and folder), so being Max 6+ meets one of Fred's restriction.

But then, I don't really know where this fact that cyclone "is" like that (one of few libraries with closed set of objects) came about, as it's not something that was ever discussed on the list or ever shared with the community. Never was something dictated or imposed by the original author or described in the project. It seems more like an opinion of what Fred thinks cyclone should be.

Apparently, it is not a consensus in the community. I was able to mobilize a few people to help and code new objects, all in favour of adding Max6+ features. Marco, who joined this thread to discuss this 3 days ago, was helping me coding 6 new objects alone, and is now on hold waiting for this discussion to progress.

Jonathan, this addresses your inquire and much more, I'm digressing, and will now respond to other messages on this thread, take care.

2016-02-19 23:31 GMT-02:00 Esteban Viveros <emviveros@gmail.com>:

cyclone is very useful to anyone like me which use pd and max (...) bridging cycling74 platform with pd are a useful tool to learn patches and copy them

>From its early time, cyclone aimed to a compatibility to Max/MSP and, at the time, was obviously centered around the current and most to date version (4.6). Citing the original project description, it was "mainly for people using both Max and Pd, and thus wanting to develop cross-platform patches". So yeah Esteban, cyclone is originally for people/users like you!

for me is something sad to know that bridge is large outdated, and the worse, we have people interested in make the updates to allow patches workables in pd (cyclone) and Max and exist the possibility of stay with an outdated compatibility.

I understand your concern to all of a sudden, when we have a mobilization to work on cyclone, that there's a hold back to that. Cyclone was made available still "at an early stage" (as described in the original project description). This means it wasn't able to meer its full potential of cloning every object, although a huge amount of great work had been done. These days, even some of the great work that had been done is now partially outdated indeed. That the work we should do investing in maintaining cyclone should consciously keep it outdated on purpose doesn't seem right to me.

This is only my point of view. A user, and I wish contributor too in the future.

Being a user (with the exact profile the library was created for) does not invalidate your opinion, on the contrary. I guess I feel users are somewhat intimidated to join discussions around here, or even participate on the list, so you popping up is a great contribution, we need your voice. And I don't believe any user with your profile will like the idea that the cloned library for Pd doesn't care about newer versions of Max. That might be a hell of a turn off...

On the other hand, such an idea could come only from not an user, or from someone who's not even considering or thinking about users, it's more of a maintenance's point of view concern, the issue being that there'd be more work involved in it than a will to commit to such amount of task.

Which is cool, no one is getting paid for this. The weird thing is that such personal and individual idea should prevail in a project where other people are willing to contribute and push it forward. It's not a matter of asking someone to work on stuff they don't wanna, the work is already being done for other who are excited to do it...

2016-02-20 15:57 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com>:

+1 To Ivica's proposal and rationale. There are plenty of people willing to help with development and maintenance. If a Max 4.6 compatibility library is really necessary, perhaps that could be the fork with the new name.

I'm actually confused, as I see Fred is putting out a revision of Cyclone with a different project description and all. I wanted to discuss this in yet another thread I opened, but here we go, hehe...

Anyway, I hope there's no need to any "fork" and that we could all work together on the best interest of the community. Maintaining a fork that's arbitrarily compatible to an old version and then having another one that's not incompatible to the "legacy" cyclone, but only has a little more objects and functionalities is insane (it's not like there's a crazy huge amount of objects and functionalities from Max6+ to cover). It's insane because whatever work is being done in the "legacy"cyclone will be incorporated in the "modern" on with only a handful of extra features. Should this exist and people should bother with the confusion and do we have to explain to them why it is like that?

But I agree that reducing the scope of the original project and arbitrarily being against the inclusion of particular objects and totally against the inclusion of any objects from an arbitrarily set version of Max should be considered as a fork of the project.

cheers