On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:42:12PM +0100, matteo sisti sette wrote: > Yes of course. I didn't mean to criticize your suggestion: I meant to > "criticize PD" that makes that suggestion necessary. > > Of course that IS a valid workaround in a lot of situations where the > use of abstractions is not very extensive; it is just not feasible > when you're developing some complex large scale application that you > need also to mantain or further develop in the future.
Here are some other reasons why you might not want to use Pd to develop a large scale application (and why I won't call Pd a 'programming language'): * No hash/map/table type, or array type that holds anything except floats. * No strings. * No introspection. * Dynamic patching is unsupported, hacky, and occasionally buggy. * Audio processing is hard coded into it instead of being supported by the core language as a library like in 99% of other programming languages. * It's not easily portable to embedded systems without many modifications. * Inconsistencies in the syntax as discussed many times on this list before. * Lacking some other useful programming constructs. It's great to use Pd for what it totally rocks at: making interesting graphics and music, but I wouldn't encourage it to be used as a general purpose programming language, because it simply isn't good enough at that job. There have been [code] patches submitted in the past to rectify some of the above points, but Miller doesn't seem to be interested in turning Pd into a general purpose programming language, which is probably a good idea since it's so good at what it does already, and doing that might ruin it completely. Long live Pd, the greatest and most fun audio visual mangling tool I know of! Best, Chris. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
