Bravo ! Bravo ! Nice to have you all guys around for a little - too short - while. I wish I had spent more time with everyone, and a t the paper sessions. I have been busy with my "little" installation and such.
I reallt appreciated the PDDP (documentation) meeting, even if I wasn't so active. I think there is much to look forward with pd. I enjoyed Miller's talk about Pd being already very interesting, and not needing too much changes in the future, but I still think that some things could be changed for the better, regarding symbols, threads, docs, Gem, libraries, etc.
(I am writing a little OpenGL OSC client for Pd meanwhile... :) )
The convention has also been for me an incredible source of artistic inspiration. I had a ery good time. I think that the open source like-minded community that we are a part of is very creative. Sharing knowledge is what links us.
a
2007/9/2, Ed Kelly morph_2016@yahoo.co.uk:
Yep. A fantastic effort by the organisers made this a truly memorable experience. I really enjoyed finally meeting many of you, and meeting some for the second time. It's really opened my eyes to so many possibilities in PD art, and art in general, and I'd like to thank each an every one of you for a great time.
So, we'll have another one sooner rather than later I hope _/:-D}# Best, Ed
Koray Tahiroglu ktahirog@uiah.fi wrote:
This might be abit late reply, I just got finally online through my neighbour's open wi-fi. Thanks to all who made this wonderful convention possible, I had great time during the convention and it was nice to meet you all face to face. hope to see you next time as well.
koray.
M.Koray Tahiroglu Media Lab,UIAH http://mlab.uiah.fi/~korayt/ tel: +358 50 939 02 33 ( in Finland only) tel: +90 533 712 8245
On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:00 PM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:52:44 -0400 From: "David Merrill" dmerrill@media.mit.edu Subject: Re: [PD] some images... To: "Kevin McCoy" km.takewithyou@gmail.com Cc: PD-list@iem.at, reduzierer@yahoo.de Message-ID: f86d2a880708271952k34e0238r33eb27446a5e4bdd@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Yes, it was great go see/meet everyone! Huge thanks to the organizers, who did a lot of work to plan such a nice series of events over the week. The chance to meet people who were previously just names on the pd-list was perhaps the most important part of the event, and I think this mingling and sharing of ideas fired up much enthusiasm amongst all the developers and users in attendance. Hope to see everyone again next time, -David M.
On 8/27/07, Kevin McCoy km.takewithyou@gmail.com wrote:
(who's sad, that is already over)
Me too - it was a really awesome time and I am so thankful to all the organizers and the great people we met. Montreal is a really nice place and I can't wait to come back. I am going to be working on the footage that I took with Greg Pond and we might have something to show in the next couple of months, maybe sooner. Should be fun.
And Roman, email me and let's do a NetPD jam when you have some time back home! I have been experimenting with the patches a little bit.
Kevin
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- MIT Media Lab dmerrill@media.mit.edu http://web.media.mit.edu/~dmerrill/
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Alexandre Quessy wrote:
I enjoyed Miller's talk about Pd being already very interesting, and not needing too much changes in the future, but I still think that some things could be changed for the better, regarding symbols, threads, docs, Gem, libraries, etc.
Miller's talk was rather vague: to some people it sounded like "pd will stagnate", but at the same time, it didn't quite say what was going to stay the same. A lot of pd has to stay the same no matter what, but people wouldn't quite agree on how much.
I think that the most important thing Pd needs at the moment is to get away from sedimentary programming (that is, deposit more code on top of the existing code) and metamorphic programming (applying intense peer pressure on the sediment makes it harder), if you excuse my mineralogy metaphors...
That's why we started getting into automatic testing (re: the last talk at pd convention)
(I am writing a little OpenGL OSC client for Pd meanwhile... :) )
Don't you mean OpenCV instead?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
I think that the most important thing Pd needs at the moment is to get away from sedimentary programming (that is, deposit more code on top of the existing code) and metamorphic programming (applying intense peer pressure on the sediment makes it harder), if you excuse my mineralogy metaphors...
That's why we started getting into automatic testing (re: the last talk at pd convention)
I think that is true not only for code, but also for patches. starting with a clear idea of what patches and parts of patches/modules/externals should do and providing test cases makes patches and even parts of them more useful for the public. atm automatic testing is still very complicated to do (at least I would not know how to write it). but testing could also be "manual". I really like the idea to start patching with a help patch where the object inlets and outlets and functions/features are defined before starting with the external itself. maybe that also would make patches more shareable... marius.
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, marius schebella wrote:
I think that is true not only for code, but also for patches.
I don't make a distinction between patches and "real code".
atm automatic testing is still very complicated to do (at least I would not know how to write it). but testing could also be "manual".
No, it should be pretty clear that it can't be manual. At least it should be semi-automatic: the patch guides the person and shows results that are easy to verify for the person but hard to do for the computer.
I really like the idea to start patching with a help patch where the object inlets and outlets and functions/features are defined before starting with the external itself. maybe that also would make patches more shareable... marius.
This works if you have something specific in mind. If you are making exploratory programming, this can't work. However, in the process of making exploratory programming you may encounter a pattern that you want to turn into an abstraction, just like when doing any programming. At this point it becomes less exploratory and more defined... well, maybe you are not sure about how the abstraction would be used yet, but that's normal; at least you know where you're heading. What I mean by exploratory programming, is to noodle around with your program until you find something you want.
One annoying thing with Pd, is that before you make the help patch, you have to make at least a skeleton of the class you want to make, so that you have inlets and outlets to connect in your help-patch or test-patch. It goes a bit against the spirit of "test-first", but it's not a big loss.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
-
Alexandre Quessy -
marius schebella -
Mathieu Bouchard