On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Oct 29, 2005, at 4:24 PM, carmen wrote:
but a lot of things that are a limitation in one are a limitation in the other, i mean why do you see so many cases of hacking in languages (javascript in max, everying-but-javascript in pd) instead of extending/flexibilitating the core so that you dont think "damnit, i need ruby for this..."
I totally agree! Pd can be a programming platform, it does not need to be just an application. All great programming platforms are written in themselves: C, Java, Lisp, SmallTalk, etc. so why not Pd too? It needs some work to accomplish this, but it is within reach.
It takes a really long arm to have it within reach. (How many elbows?)
But I'm definitely not giving up.
And certainly it's a good start to make more abstractions. E.g. when I wanted to rewrite Ruby in Ruby, I didn't have the skills nor the guts to attack the meat of the problem, that is, the interpreter itself; but still I started working on the project: I started with easy parts. I recoded a lot of C code as Ruby code so that it becomes easier in the future to make not only a Ruby-in-Ruby interpreter, but also a Ruby-in-whatever interpreter.
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada