Hallo, Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote: > A related topic is: in general, if there's an adequate solution with > an abstraction, should one use it rather than an external? Does this > change in pedagogical situations where a student might profit in > learning from a rather sparse set of unit generators? Does this > change when performance is required above all? etc. etc.
Unless performance becomes an issue I always prefer abstractions or pure-Pd idioms over externals when possible. Of course sometimes it's not possible, but for example I generally use [list prepend 0] | [route 0 1 2 3] instead of [demux 4] and [f 0]X[+ 1] instead of some [counter] external as that makes it easier for other people to run my patches (and for me to run my patches on different machines). > Another related topic -- for GOP abstractions, is it bad form to cover > the abstraction name and arguments with a canvas? What if these > things are printed as labels on canvases? I usually leave some room for the abstraction's names and arguments. If I really want to hide it (e.g. in a [sssad]-enabled slider clone which otherwise should look like a normal slider) I use the "Hide object name and arguments" property. > Thanks for the great suggestion about a style guide, though -- it > would be especially helpful to newcomers and students. Things like > "decouple number boxes and bangs used for debugging from the workings > of the patch" I feel are almost essential examples of efficient and > "proper" pd patching. And early, strong, and repetitive grounding in > [trigger]. I guess we could agree that fanning connections generally are an indicator of bad style and should make people feel physically uncomfortable. ;) Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
