Quoting matteo sisti sette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Otherwise, think about converting some of the abstractions to subpatches > > > Please don't interprete what I'm gonna say as sarchastic or offensive > to whom wrote the above sentence (which however has been suggested by > more than one person). Just take it as a general and (hopefully) > constructive discussion about PD issues... > > Would you ever say to someone writing an application in C++: > > "Think about converting some of your functions to macros"??? > > That is just not an option.
hmm, since when are macros bad? especially in C (not so much in C++) i could imagine situations where i would tell somebody to "convert some of your functions to macros". > And converting abstractions to subpatches is much more limiting than that. > > Inefficiencies in handling a great number of instances of abstractions > are a great obstacle to applying "good" programming practices to PD > patches. > Using and reusing a great number of abstractions with many many levels > of nesting is the only reasonable way (I can think of) of developing a > large, complex, scalable, reusable "application" in PD. well yes you are right. however, it is perfectly possible to do develop large complex scalable and resuable applications in Pd (sometimes i do this) mfg.asr IOhannes ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
