That's pretty much it... There's some discussion in: http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/dartmouth-reprint.dir/

cheers Miller

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 09:21:12AM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:

Here's a little historical question I'm curious about: why wasn't the rightmost inlet on all objects originally made to be the hot/active inlet?

The one benefit I see to having the leftmost inlet be the hot inlet is that names of objects are more likely to be left-aligned. Is that basically the reason?

-Jonathan

---

Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gabriel Vinazza wrote:

Miller, I enjoyed very much reading your note, thanks for sharing your achievements and concerns. As an artist, I found lots of answers on Pd. Many of the things you seem to be worry about are clearly reflected on the software and all the community.

I hope as many people who read that paper can read it critically. Several of the ideas contained therein are detrimental and harmful to the perception and evolution of Pd/Max. Things like: Max isn't a "programming environment", and even less a "real-world programming environment"; features are left out because Max users aren't professional programmers; Max is "lacking any notion of linear control-flow" (whatever that means???); Max doesn't have scoping because musicians don't need it; the idea that object-oriented programming is all about inheritance; elegance in code has nothing to do with making creative music; the computer-science crowd preaches that reuse of code is essential to communicating knowledge; Max somehow opposed itself to computer science; "The computer should ideally feel in the musician's hands like a musical instrument, needing only to be tuned up and then played" (!!!); etc... well I should put a (!!!) after each of those phrases. If you need any justification from me for any item(s) on this list I will provide it (if I did it all upfront, it could be long like a paper).

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Miller Puckette wrote:

mine shouldn't be more than a reference point.

Whether you enjoy it or not, it's taken as quite a reference.

Max and Pd are based on many design principles that are far from universally shared

Don't worry, my rebuttals wouldn't be any more universally shared than that (on average). Also, I'm definitely not representing any computer-science department or ideology, even though computer-science itself is a lot bigger than any set of dogmas coming from it.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:

I think jmax phoenix has scoping.

That's not what I was alluding to. It was about this part of the paper:

This decision was made to remove a layer of complexity that didn't seem to be strictly necessary in the context of computer music production, in order to make Max as accessible as possible to people who aren't professional computer programmers.

Well, I don't think it's the «real» (or «main») reason for it. Local scoping did not happen, because Pd doesn't need local variables. Local variables are not needed because named variables aren't particularly needed either. Named variables are not needed because cold inlets act as unnamed variables. After that much of a reduction of the need for local scoping, you have a situation in which the reasons against local scoping have a lot more relative weight...!

about jMax... I don't think we should bother talking again about jMax... but I'm not going to prevent people from summoning the dead.

Does DesireData?

On pd-list and/or pd-dev, I wrote some proposals about how the local-scoping could be. I don't recall getting feedback. Those ideas haven't been really integrated in the plans of DesireData. Depends on what's considered wrong with the current fake-local solutions. If it's mostly a matter of symbol pollution, then a plan to make symbols "biodegradable" would go a long way. I have a quite detailed plan about this, ... but it's just a plan. I mean it's a good plan, but it's not an implementation.

Fake-local scope like we have with $0-foo isn't necessarily wrong. It's not any more wrong than current namespacing solutions (which also use symbol concatenation from start to end). Ideally I'd rather have it not use actual concatenation, for various reasons, but I wouldn't bother with a change that isn't well-enough integrated with the existing pd and the existing uses of pd.

What's the status of DesireData these days, anyway?

Officially resumed, but semi-on-hold. I'm trying to "institutionalise" it a little bit so that I have more of an incentive to work on it steadily.

It looks like the roadmap hasn't been updated for quite a while.

What roadmap?... There wasn't an actual thing named "roadmap" until this spring, when I started trying to sort out items in the TODO list by priority... but it's very long to do so... especially when one thinks it's a good idea to take the time reserved on the roadmap, to actually try to fix bugs listed in the TODO, just so that they don't have to be listed in the roadmap. ;) (I did that).

Anyway... I will finally be able to say that there's an official roadmap soon, in the end.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

nice paper! just to add something to the discussion: "In the best of circumstances the artists are around to remind us of their needs, which often turn out quite different from what either of us first imagined."

From my point of view this stage where we have a discussion between

artists and programmers was eliminated at the moment when Pd was perceived to be a programming language (which it somehow is) as opposed to a computer music instrument. Look at Pd as a programming language and artists using Pd to program/build their instruments. Then, artists are doing this in their function as programmers and not as musicians. The interchange between artist and software writer/instrument builder has to take place in a schizophrenic manner inside oneself. Otoh, this means that a lot of the discussion we are seeing today about improvements or new features are really discussions between two types of programmers: the ones that write Pd, and the ones that write *with* or *in* Pd. This is really a trap, because the original citation above does not take into account that another type of programmer would pop up between the artist and the software writer that just wants to improve features to use Pd as a tool to build instruments. Needs on this level are somehow ignored because they are no artistic needs. Otoh, this also built a wall/gap between artists and core Pd developers, because artists nowadays mostly talk to people who use Pd as a programming language unless even more people admit to wear more than one hat. best, marius.

2009/8/19 Miller Puckette mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu:

That's pretty much it...  There's some discussion in: http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Publications/dartmouth-reprint.dir/

cheers Miller

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 09:21:12AM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:

...

Here's a little historical question I'm curious about: why wasn't the rightmost inlet on all objects originally made to be the hot/active inlet?

The one benefit I see to having the leftmost inlet be the hot inlet is that names of objects are more likely to be left-aligned.  Is that basically the reason?

-Jonathan

---

Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

---

Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Gabriel Vinazza wrote:

Once more, as an artist, I know that the freedom is on my mind... so I can make music even with a spoon.

Spoons are a traditional percussion instrument in my culture. The idea that music can be made with a spoon is thus not only normal to me, it's also very old-fashioned.

I just wanted to say that Pd is a beatiful spoon.

I hope that it can be used as much more than that. I mean, there are all those sophisticated devices that in the end got used as doorstops and paperweights, and I don't wish them that. I justed want to say that Pd is an excellent kind of Pd (sic), that can be used in terms of what it is instead of whatever else we like to compare it to.

(comparisons also become more legitimate when you carefully select the object compared to, according to the number and depth of its similarities...)

And if "ideally" Pd should be just a "musical instrument" that you only have to "tune and play", it's only to go with those musicians who ideally should understand the breadth and depth of Pd's potential, but in practice don't.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

Hi Gabriel,

Projects need excellent criticism; they become moribund without it.
Matju's understanding of Pd is deep and broad, and he's not just making noise -- the things of which he speaks are always interesting to me, because they give insight into the inner workings of Pd.

It's easy to hear hostility in this text medium, when in reality it's probably just passion.

Phil

Gabriel Vinazza wrote:

I don't think Pd is an instrument, not in the sense you seem to understand something is it.

It seems you don't have much to do or your job is not so exciting like fixing your deficiencies by spiting those horrible arguments to people that have more noble objectives.

You can hear yourself now, I won't reply.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Mathieu Bouchardmatju@artengine.ca wrote:

...

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Gabriel Vinazza wrote:

...

Once more, as an artist, I know that the freedom is on my mind... so I can make music even with a spoon.

Spoons are a traditional percussion instrument in my culture. The idea that music can be made with a spoon is thus not only normal to me, it's also very old-fashioned.

...

I just wanted to say that Pd is a beatiful spoon.

I hope that it can be used as much more than that. I mean, there are all those sophisticated devices that in the end got used as doorstops and paperweights, and I don't wish them that. I justed want to say that Pd is an excellent kind of Pd (sic), that can be used in terms of what it is instead of whatever else we like to compare it to.

(comparisons also become more legitimate when you carefully select the object compared to, according to the number and depth of its similarities...)

And if "ideally" Pd should be just a "musical instrument" that you only have to "tune and play", it's only to go with those musicians who ideally should understand the breadth and depth of Pd's potential, but in practice don't.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

---

Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Gabriel Vinazza wrote:

I don't think Pd is an instrument, not in the sense you seem to understand something is it.

I'm sorry for not understanding you. I'd rather not anger you. Whatever one says, there's always a chance for misunderstanding, and doubly so in this kind of thread.

spiting those horrible arguments to people that have more noble objectives.

I don't know much about your objectives. You simply appeared as a person talking about a spoon, and I wondered...

You can hear yourself now, I won't reply.

I accept your decision.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, marius schebella wrote:

Look at Pd as a programming language and artists using Pd to program/build their instruments. Then, artists are doing this in their function as programmers and not as musicians.

The problem is that you think of those functions as separate. When you make a musical Pd patch, you are both making a program and making music. In this case, it is one and the same activity, but plenty of people persist in thinking you can't be both programming and making music as two aspects of the same thoughts, actions and gestures.

When I started talking about Pd as a programming language, it's definitely not to rob it from the artists! It was more because in my mind there is no contradiction whatsoever and I didn't see what was the point of thinking of Pd as not really a programming language. It was more like giving to the artists the idea of a programming language, a hint that out there, there is that mountain of ideas that they can use, that is not as irrelevant to making music as was previously assumed.

There are plenty of people who use large amounts of math and/or custom programming for their jobs and don't make so much of a fuss about it. Computerising the biology lab doesn't make it less like biology and computerising the printing press doesn't make it less like printing.

The interchange between artist and software writer/instrument builder has to take place in a schizophrenic manner inside oneself.

That's because of lesser integration. Compartmentalising of knowledge is very useful as it makes one fit better in a university department and makes things more countable (a person may have 3 degrees in 3 "different" disciplines...). More integration of your knowledge makes you figure out more how all those things intersect and how some things are not that much distinct after all, and it compresses information in your brain, and allows a more diverse span of reasoning. This increased span of reasoning is also what can make you fit less in a university department and is at the heart of the recent need for interdisciplinary studies.

About schizophrenia... you actually mean split personality, which is something entirely different.

Otoh, this means that a lot of the discussion we are seeing today about improvements or new features are really discussions between two types of programmers: the ones that write Pd, and the ones that write *with* or *in* Pd. This is really a trap, because the original citation above does not take into account that another type of programmer would pop up between the artist and the software writer that just wants to improve features to use Pd as a tool to build instruments. Needs on this level are somehow ignored because they are no artistic needs. Otoh, this also built a wall/gap between artists and core Pd developers, because artists nowadays mostly talk to people who use Pd as a programming language unless even more people admit to wear more than one hat. best, marius.

Perhaps all that I'm saying so far is just a really sophisticated way to tell you that I have no bloody idea what you're talking about. ;) All those different types of people and those distinctions between programming language and instrument, and those who wear different hats and seem to have a need to switch hats. huh? all those people struggling to be a social role, or several of them, instead of just being themselves...

But I still think we could talk about it more and finally understand each other.

From my point of view this stage where we have a discussion between artists and programmers was eliminated at the moment when Pd was perceived to be a programming language (which it somehow is) as opposed to a computer music instrument.

BTW if I spoke against the word "instrument" it's more about how people are likely take this word than what it could mean. It's the concern that the traditional image of the instrument can limit the ideas of the authors. But it depends on how the word is actually used. The context a word is put in, can suggest the word to be small or big in scope.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec