On Sep 8, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Ivan Franco wrote:
Sorry for the following comment but I'm a bit bothered about how people react when we talk about Max or Nato or Jitter or whatever software similar to PD/GEM/etc... I'm really supportive about opensource and I think it's the way to go, but I must mention something that seems good/practical, in my point of view, in those softwares. Not comparing or asking for features. Just commenting, since we all want GEM to grow to be more....
That's a fair comment. The comparisons are fine, and I have made them before myself. However, I find it valuable to try to give some idea of what is going on in the development end, and give some idea of what we are attempting to do.
One of the basis for my previous comments is that I have found that most of the video systems around are for the most part exactly the same (along with their audio counterparts), and I do not see the need to make GEM into another one of those. It has some features that do set it apart, like being one of the few (only?) pure 3D systems, which need to be explored further.
Your request for multiple windows is a good one, and it will happen, but it is part of a larger project that goes beyond having some preview windows. At this point, the GEM developers are starting to not discuss development on the level of individual features and enhancements, but rather at the level of systems design and implementation. This seems to be very different from how most software is worked on, and I'm hoping it leads to a lot of new tools and solves some problems. There really is a vast area of ideas relating to video and graphics that haven't even been touched on by anyone working on this type of software. Right now, I want to explore these avenues rather than just coding up some more video plugins and adding more variants of existing features, which is unfortunately seems to be the most common path for software developers to take.
cgc