On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Derek Holzer wrote:
Hi Jared,
for what it's worth, I've been working with PD for years and I still can't read most other people's patches ;-)
Everybody has their own style, their own "handwriting", and some are more readable than others. Diving right into somebody's finished patch is pretty difficult for an experienced user, and almost impossible
for a beginner, I'd say! If you were trying to learn German, would you start by reading Goethe?
Partially, I think this is due to lack of common practice in coding
style and things like that. Most languages, programming or other,
have a lot of standard practices when it comes to writing them done
in different contexts. For whatever reason, the Pd/Max world has not
developed many conventions, and I think that makes reading other
people's patches harder.
.hc
I learned PD by reproducing things which I understood already in
stages, such as going from a quad-panner, a mixer, a sampler and a delay-network, to complex feedback-FM, a granular synthesizer and an algorithmic sequencer...etc etc. First I played around with the
built-in examples, then I made simple things and basic utilities. After that I went back to the examples I skipped and figured out what I did wrong, and then I moved on to "porting" things from other apps I had used before and knew the structure of (AudioMulch units, Reaktor
instruments, various VSTs, etc). These kinds of exercises are the ones I think work best. Start from a point you know, and figure out how to do it with
the most basic objects in PD. If core PD doesn't do it, then it's time to reach for an external.best, d.
jared wrote:
obvious similarities, but the more time I spend with PD the more they feel like different beasts. I will definitely go back and start
from square one with PD.-- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ---Oblique Strategy # 77: "Give way to your worst impulse"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore