> De: "Roman Haefeli" <[email protected]> > > Hi all > > The thread below makes me curious about what people think about the > support of two or more several implementations of the similar > functionality. > > There are a few such cases: > * [ext13/wavinfo] vs. [iemlib/soundfile_info] > * OSCx vs. mrpeach's osc library > * arraysize vs.[expr size("array-name")] (which could be turned > easily > into an abstraction) > > There are certainly more similar examples. Is that a good or a bad > thing? Do you rather find it annoying when you find two or more > implementations for the same thing or do you consider it a question > of > choice: more is better? Is it possible at all to make generalizations > about that? Is it the lesser of two evils to keep each implementation > for the sake of backwards compatibility or is it preferable to focus > on > one single (best working) implementation and get rid of the rest > (which > breaks compatibility, of course)? > > My personal stance on the issue: > I don't remember all cases, but in the case of [wavinfo] vs. > [soundfile_info] I spent a lot of time figuring out which works for > which files. Also, I wanted to know which is mature enough so that > it's > worth to write bug reports to its author. This consumes quite some > time > and I think everyone who discovers that there are many solutions for > her > problem needs to invest some time to find out which works best. > Personally, I think this is lost time, because not only it needs > twice > as much time to implement the same thing twice, every user needs to > figure out the small differences. > Well aware, that this (my) opinion is likely not applicable to > others, I > tend to think that patches are too much treated like holy cows whose > breaking should be avoided by any means. If it turns out, that my > patches use an inferior of concurrent implementations, I'd be happy > to > switch them to the new class, especially if it helps to keep the > future > clean. > Hi Roman,
I think that it's better when we can modify the behavior of an object by modifying a pd patch. When everything is enclosed into an external, somehow it's private, and then it's not really pd anymore. More people are able to debug a pd patch, anyone could fix the problem without compiling anything. We should use C language only when we need it, in the example of [waveinfo] vs [soundfile_info], both aren't the good way for me, we just need the [binfile] external for reading the header, and all the other stuff can be done into a pd patch. my one cent _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
