Can anyone explain more why [pd~] doesn't fulfill the desire for parallel processing, and maybe provide an example of something outside of Pd that does? I don't feel like I have a great handle on the design. As Jonathan said, it seems like Pd's determinism constraint is a big hurdle to clear, though it's already relaxed a bit with netsend/receive. What are the main differences between running an instance of Pd as a [pd~] slave to another instance, and running two instances that communicate via netsend/receive and jack?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:45 PM, David Medine dmedine@ucsd.edu wrote:
I think we all need to learn more about multi-threading if we want to run real-time, modular, digital signal processing algorithms on multi-core machines. I, for one, can not think of any general, robust way to do this. In that sense, Pd's adherence to single threading is actually a very elegant solution to the problem.
On 2/23/2016 12:25 PM, martin brinkmann wrote:
On 22/02/16 02:49, Matti Viljamaa wrote:
How do you think Pure Data is limited?
for me the only real and important (i can think of at the moment) limitation is the block-based audio processing. to me this seems quite unnatural and inconvenient when dealing with digital audio. it kept me for a couple of years from using pd, though it is only a 'showstopper' in rather few cases, i found out. feedback in large/complex patches for example, since it is not very practical (or possible at all) to re-block everything to 1...
what i tried but couldn't (yet): build a decent piano-roll editor (vanilla).
and i believe too, pd has to 'learn' better multithreading to run adequately on our future machines with hundreds or even thousands of arm-cores...
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list