On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <ma...@artengine.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Matt Barber wrote: > >> I think this might underline how useful it would be for those of us who >> use vanilla Pd to have some symbol manipulation tools in vanilla, > > It's useless to underline it more than it's been underlined before. Just > stop using vanilla. This fixes the problem.
I agree -- I don't use vanilla myself, but I know a lot of people do. As you suggest it's useful for testing the limits -- the sorting algorithms I implemented a year ago ([list-shellsort] in list-abs is one of them) are in this class of objects. I also think they're useful for teaching students who are intimidated by written code (almost all of my students are classically-trained composers) some things about algorithmic thinking. By "underlining," I mean sometimes you don't know just how badly it's missing until you try to do it in Pd and check the results against the compiled libraries. [list-l2s] will never be as fast as [list2symbol] from zexy... etc. MB > > Games like you've done can be fun though. I've had fun with the [list-drip] > speed hacks in february. But it was only a game. In real life I use > [foreach], which is written in C++, and it works fine and faster than what's > possible to do as a regular Pd patch. The game was only for testing limits > and demonstrating unusual techniques (i mean techniques that are unusual in > the context of pd; they may be commonplace in some other programming > language). _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list