Derek Holzer wrote:
I knew somebody would have to complicate my simple, straightforward
answer...
sorry: a simple, straightforward and misleading answer.
Why hasn't somebody made this the "default" set of OSC objects in
Extended by now then? Or perhaps replaced the original oscx libraries
with these in a non-breaking way?
oh, i have.
i don't use Pd-extended, i don't know where i should have put these
abstractions.
iirc, i have also posted such a wrapper on this list.
And why is it split into two different
libs?
what?
osc and net? maybe, because it deals with 2 different topics?
and how do you notice that it is split into 2 "different" libs in PdX?
Couldn't these objects be wrapped to give the same name as the standard
OSC objects,
ähm, what is the "standard OSC objects".
but with whatever "better" functionality the list gurus
have decided they give?
it's not about "better" functionality.
it's about a broken and unmaintained object that only works in the most
simple cases vs. an actively maintained one.
i hardly ever care for the "added" functionality (if by
"added/additional/superfluous" you really mean "according to the OSC
standard"), like having typetags.
however, i do care for if an object will crash during performance or not.
For n00bs, having to use two different
non-standard/non-default libs is just super confusing, and distracts
from the task at hand, which is not to goof around with configuring Pd
and/or importing libs but to communicate between two OSC apps.
i totally agree.
this is why i don't understandd why anybody would recommend the
outdated, non-maintained, broken choice of these 2 libs.
Also for writing the FLOSS Manual, a "correct" chapter on OSC now means
either Path or [import] has to be discussed first, and then two
different libs must be used. Big fat bummer!
??
when using oscx, you are using a library: so either Path or [import] (or
better [declare]) have to be discussed first.
so what's the difference to mrpeach's libs?
however, indeed you have to use 2 objects instead of just 1. big fat bummer!
Can anybody say (in a few sentences rather than a lengthly thread) why
one wouldn't use the simpler OSC objects for such a simple task? Points
for brevity, nobody gets paid by the word around here ;-)
crashes.
osc-standards.
ability to communicate with OSC-apps over udp/tcp/usb/...
mfgadr
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
