I think you are mixing up two things, FLOSS can be commercial
software, it often is, think RedHat Enterprise or Digium/Asterisk.
That's free software that they are selling. When people are paid to
work on something, then they can spend more concentrated effort on
it, that's for sure.
Le jeudi 06 décembre 2007 à 16:24 -0500, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, just not been
implemented in vanilla.
excuse me, which version of pd really allows you to edit and save cord
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
they also force me to do workarounds every time i need to connect objects
in a loop, unless i just let patchcords go over objects. There's no way
that loop situations can be untangled without
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Le jeudi 06 décembre 2007 à 16:24 -0500, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, just not been
implemented in vanilla.
excuse me, which version of pd really allows
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
As for Pd vs. C, there was a time in the not-so-distant past where
programmers thought that compilers were horribly inefficient, and that
they were only really good for prototyping things. Then you'd code
things for real in assembly. That
hi lis
this is a big discussion :)
im a long term pd user, and no max user
I vote YES for the segmented patchcords.
i belive that it is not good to use them ALWAYS but i came i the situatuon
when they come in handy
and the user have a chance to choose... if you dont like them do not use
them :-),
Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/MSP
users have a choice, whilst under Pd we have no choice. It's all very
well justifying how great it is to not
Le jeudi 06 décembre 2007 à 08:21 +0100, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/MSP
users have a choice, whilst under Pd we
On Dec 6, 2007, at 2:21 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that
Max/MSP
users have a choice, whilst under Pd we have no choice.
I think some inlets take both, dsp and messages (throw~ for example).
also, did you think about changing the look between edit and run mode?
marius.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Phil Stone wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Color really
Yes, definitely, I am thinking of something that combines the two,
like a black box with blue inside. I am going to play with that
more. The problem is that it's trickier to program that, hopefully
it's not too tricky.
.hc
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:48 AM, marius schebella wrote:
I think
Michal Seta wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:09 AM, marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a big problem in max is that there is no undo for segmented patchcords.
once segmented, you can only delete them and redraw to make them not
segmented.
That's not true. Ctl-click on a segmented patchcord,
On Dec 5, 2007, at 12:45 PM, B. Bogart wrote:
Ah segmented patch coords again.
How about a real solution to the problem of routing objects in
diagrams?
In PD this could mean a few things:
1. Best patching practise!!! Often you can choose not to overlap
objects
and connections just
oh! it depends WHERE you click. thanks!
marius.
vade wrote:
you have to command click on OS X - it works, and on patch coords with
only one knee too. (select the half towards the inlet).
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:48 AM, marius schebella wrote:
Michal Seta wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:09 AM,
you have to command click on OS X - it works, and on patch coords with
only one knee too. (select the half towards the inlet).
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:48 AM, marius schebella wrote:
Michal Seta wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:09 AM, marius schebella
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a big problem in max
In reactable, objects are connected together when inlet/outlet matches
the good kind of data, it would be possible to do it also with PureData,
without breaking the rules.
If a box is dragged nearly another box, the connection would happen
when an inlet/outlet passes into the area of
i read your mail as a pledge for a bounty system - is that right?
Am 06.12.2007 um 20:08 schrieb Kyle Klipowicz:
And this is precisely the unfortunate reason why the open source world
will (almost) always lag behind the commercial world of consumer
software. When developers make their bread
Now there's an idea! If some donations could be had to offer up bounty
money, I'd say
a few more of us would be inclined to pitch in. Also, has pd been in the
Goggle Summer of Code?
... I'm unfamiliar with the dev setup but have there been any coding camps
where people get
together to just
Hallo,
Kyle Klipowicz hat gesagt: // Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
And this is precisely the unfortunate reason why the open source world
will (almost) always lag behind the commercial world of consumer
software. When developers make their bread and butter based upon if
the consumer buys, they're
If I were running a commercial software firm and software made by random
people in their spare time compared pretty well with my pricey software, I
would be a little concerned.
On Dec 6, 2007 1:08 PM, Kyle Klipowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And this is precisely the unfortunate reason why the
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, just not been
implemented in vanilla.
excuse me, which version of pd really allows you to edit and save cord
segmentations?
_ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ...
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 04:24:42PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, just not been
implemented in vanilla.
excuse me, which version of pd really allows you to edit and save cord
segmentations?
On Dec 6, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Daniel Wilcox wrote:
Now there's an idea! If some donations could be had to offer up
bounty money, I'd say
a few more of us would be inclined to pitch in.
Patches welcome! ;) Seriously, if anyone wants to set this up, I
think it could work. In the past,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 04:24:42PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Olivier Heinry wrote:
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, just not been
implemented in vanilla.
excuse me, which version of pd really allows
vade wrote:
Personally I find that use of segmented patch coords can *increase*
readability in patches that are well laid out. I have a much easier
time following segmented patch coords that are laid out with care than
a similarly grouped /laid out patch sans segmentation.
while i
Ah segmented patch coords again.
How about a real solution to the problem of routing objects in diagrams?
In PD this could mean a few things:
1. Best patching practise!!! Often you can choose not to overlap objects
and connections just by arranging objects as the connections force you
to, which
Segmented patch cords fall somewhere between deferred maintenance and turd
polish on the continuum of practicality. Of course in Max you can always
resort to sweeping the whole mess under the rug as a last resort.
Stick that in your revolution!
On Dec 5, 2007 12:42 PM, vade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
B. Bogart wrote:
Ah segmented patch coords again.
How about a real solution to the problem of routing objects in diagrams?
In PD this could mean a few things:
1. Best patching practise!!! Often you can choose not to overlap objects
and connections just by arranging objects as the connections
I say we meet in a back alleyway and beat the crap out of one another
over this.
:)
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:04 PM, chris clepper wrote:
Segmented patch cords fall somewhere between deferred maintenance
and turd polish on the continuum of practicality. Of course in Max
you can always
Segmenting, coloring, and/or hiding the patch cords aren't going to
magically make every patch clear and easy to follow. Once a patch gets to a
certain level of density it is time to rethink how the whole thing is
structured or find a different tool. Abstractions and subpatches help quite
a bit,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/MSP
users have a choice, whilst under Pd we have no choice. It's all very
well justifying how great it is to not have patch chords, but the lack
of that feature/bug definately annoys
Yeah, giving people a CHOICE is certainly condescending, what the [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
you do realize not everyone who uses PD is knowledgeable in the
languages, apis and underlying code base to make the modifications
they may request.
If anyone is being condescending, it is you with your
Dear god, please, no.
no no no no no. No gradiated patch coords. *please*
I would not mind self routing patch coords, but somehow, whenever a
computer/algorithm/programmer tries to do things for me, like
intelligently re-arrange x, it ends up getting in my way. I suspect
this will be the
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 14:33 -0500, vade wrote:
Yeah, giving people a CHOICE is certainly condescending, what the [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
calm down. i have the impression, that you completely misunderstood
matju's point. or am i misunderstanding something? i think, he meant,
that for (lazy) devs it
On Dec 5, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
B. Bogart wrote:
Ah segmented patch coords again.
How about a real solution to the problem of routing objects in
diagrams?
In PD this could mean a few things:
1. Best patching practise!!! Often you can choose not to overlap
objects
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, chris clepper wrote:
Segmenting, coloring, and/or hiding the patch cords aren't going to
magically make every patch clear and easy to follow.
I'm not expecting magic. I've never expected magic. I don't see what's the
relationship between segmenting/coloring and magic. I
I consider the lack of segmented patch chords a nifty feature that keeps MAX
users away.
I started with PD and am pretty well comfortable in just laying out my
patches in an efficient manner.
As previously stated, there's always [t a] if you ever need a segment.
However, if that is one of the
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
And how about patch cords that start out one colour and end up another
with
a smooth blend all the way along? Then you could identify different cords
as
well as know which way they were going.
Color really makes things stand out, especially in a black and white
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Roman Haefeli wrote:
calm down. i have the impression, that you completely misunderstood
matju's point. or am i misunderstanding something? i think, he meant,
that for (lazy) devs it is easier to find a ('condescending') reason to
not implement a certain feature than just
Hi guys
As usual a little slow here.
I use a segmented patchcord from time to time, its a dummy [sg] object
with one inlet and one outlet inserted at the segmentpoint.
With PD 0.40-2 you can set the props to 4x4pix and hide objectname and
arguments.
There's a png (120k)here
I am trying to subsume what I read so far.
A - READABILITY:
readability means that when you look at a patch, you understand its
logic and dataflow. readability is important for programmers, when
looking at their own patches, but also when looking at other peoples
patches. readability is a
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, vade wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
If the people want it, why not give it to them?
Because it's easier to write a condescending justification for the lack of
segmented patchcords than to write the code for segmented patchcords.
Yeah, giving
My apologies. I did infact mis-read this. Sorry Mattieu, I shall put
on my fucking duddle cap on immediately - thats what I get for
splitting my attention.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, vade wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Mathieu Bouchard
Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Color really makes things stand out, especially in a black and white
patch. So my question is, what would this color fade be communicating? A
fade would stand out even more than a solid color, IMHO. What is that
fade communicating
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:39:23PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:29:00PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Btw.: Even many Max users prefer non-segmented cords, don't they?
I think the key point to take from
Of course we should then the whole way and allow general splines
as patch cords like in . much sexier.
not even worth 2c
tm
On 05/12/2007, at 2:36 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:29:00PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Btw.: Even many Max users prefer non-segmented
On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Phil Stone wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Color really makes things stand out, especially in a black and white
patch. So my question is, what would this color fade be
communicating? A
fade would stand out even more than a solid
On Dec 4, 2007 10:09 AM, marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a big problem in max is that there is no undo for segmented patchcords.
once segmented, you can only delete them and redraw to make them not
segmented.
That's not true. Ctl-click on a segmented patchcord, unsegments it.
I
segmented patchcords can make patches less readable, but most of the
time they make patches more readable, and that is when you use so many
unsegmented cords that they hide the objects. also when you want to
connect an object at the bottom of the patch to an object at the top,
then you can lay
i have never felt the need for segmented patch cords. and as many
people keep saying, your patches will eventually end up neater and
more logical without them. they force you to patch more correctly.
infinite undos would be nice though :)
___
I think it is really a personal preference then anything else and I was
thinking that it could be a nice option. I have used segmented patch cords
for a while and I never had a problem with the patch being less readable
because the patch cord could be lined up besides another and organized more
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
segmented patchcords can make patches less readable, but most of the
time they make patches more readable, and that is when you use so many
unsegmented cords that they hide the objects. also when you want to
connect an object
There are occasional times when segmented patchcords make a patch
more readable, but the vast majority of the time, they are a
distraction at best. I have watched so many Max users spend quite a
bit of time segmenting and organizing their patchcords. If they
instead put that same effort
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
There are occasional times when segmented patchcords make a patch
more readable, but the vast majority of the time, they are a
distraction at best. I have watched so many Max users spend quite a
bit of time segmenting and organizing their patchcords. If they
good design includes more than just personal taste.
in real life, you don't want to have cables running diagonally through
your room, only because that is the easiest way to do...
in pd it is more likely that you accidently delete a line if it runs
over an object.
plus, in a performance
no.
you can pry segmented patch coords from my dead deathly ice cold grip.
right after I kiss my rounded corners and new shiny UI goodbye.
:)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Btw.: Even many Max users prefer non-segmented cords, don't they?
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, hard off wrote:
i have never felt the need for segmented patch cords. and as many
people keep saying, your patches will eventually end up neater and
more logical without them. they force you to patch more correctly.
they also force me to do workarounds every time i need
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 18:29 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
segmented patchcords can make patches less readable, but most of the
time they make patches more readable, and that is when you use so many
unsegmented cords that
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 10:33 -0500, Joe Reinsel wrote:
I think it is really a personal preference then anything else and I
was thinking that it could be a nice option.
hm... i think it depends on what kind of patches you actually work on.
if the patch is something rather simple like:
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, hard off wrote:
i have never felt the need for segmented patch cords. and as many
people keep saying, your patches will eventually end up neater and
more logical without them. they force you to patch more correctly.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:29:00PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Btw.: Even many Max users prefer non-segmented cords, don't they?
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/MSP
users have a choice, whilst under Pd we have no choice. It's all very
well justifying how
On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:29:00PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Btw.: Even many Max users prefer non-segmented cords, don't they?
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/
MSP
users have a choice, whilst under
62 matches
Mail list logo
