You're right. Damn, you're always right :) So, just to know where we are right now... What have been tested/done regarding the GUIs toolkits so far? I think we should at least have this set and go on from there...
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>wrote: > > I think this is the general idea of what everyone wants to support. But > the > way is actually takes shape is going to depend on whoever actually does the > work. A great example of this is the PDDP (Pure Data Documentation > Project). > We had lots of design meetings and then no one implemented the ideas. Then > Jonathan picked up from that what was interesting to him and made the whole > meta help system, the search plugin, etc. > > The lesson there for me is that big design discussions only work if the > people > involved them are willing to do the work to implement them. Instead, I > think > for a more decentralized community like this one, we only should nail down > the > key parts that everyone must use, then leave other decisions to those who > are > implementing those parts. > > So that means I'm happy to help people write there own GUI, and I'll > definitely be involved in the work of making it possible with Pd. > > .hc > > On 01/21/2013 01:05 PM, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote: > > That sounded like a Lego approach. :) > > > > So the way I see it the GUI development should be in the most seemless > way > > for the user, right? > > > > And we also have the problem between people who prefer a simple, leaner > GUI > > approach (the classic PD, for instance) against people who prefer a more > > sofisticated, and sexy GUI. And I believe both groups would also like > some > > more knobs and stuff... > > > > so basically, we should at least have two options of gui: simple > (classic) > > or sophisticated (sexy). But it would be cool to make it open enough to > > anyone develop their own or come up with new and customized ones. that > > would make PD way cooler than Max/MSP or anything else. So for that to > work > > (and now I must admit I really don't know the architecture behind this > part > > of PD, so maybe it is already this way), the comunication between the GUI > > and the rest of PD should be kept simple, fast and modulated, working > with > > the leanest possible API. I also think this is a good approach > considering > > that most of these toolkits will stop getting support way before PD > ceases > > to exist. I have also thought about the possibility of skins, but then > > loading a bunch of bitmaps would not help in terms of performance... > > > > > > At the same time we pick a toolkit and focus on that one first. So we > > should think of at least two teems, right? One at the GUI end and the > other > > at the core PD end... > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> On 01/21/2013 12:54 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> > >>>> From: Billy Stiltner <[email protected]> > >>>> To: IOhannes zmölnig <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: [email protected] > >>>> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:04 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [PD] GUI toolkits and custom GUIs WAS: Integra Live 1.5 > >> released > >>>> > >>>> haha , last month i tried to install juce to see about making an > >>>> alternate graphics front end to my patches. there was some weirdness > >>>> in the way you compile it then run the introjucer or somethin to > >>>> update it then after the update something didn't quite work right. > >>>> then there are all the old projects that use the old steinberg vst sdk > >>>> which you cant get from steinberg anymore so all that is just awful. i > >>>> think that there should be a really nice updated version of juce > >>>> either available now or in the near future. its a tossup between > >>>> fltk, qt , opengl ,juce, and processing. i just want to be able to > >>>> add my waveform data filenames to the presets with a fileopen dialog > >>>> without using an external, string parsing like .scl files that have > >>>> 100.00 or 3/2, and polyphonic patchcords would be nice. > >>> > >>> What about the -guicmd "cmd..." flag? Could one write a pd-gui.html > >>> that lives at localhost:1234, and have it talk to pd at its port on > >> localhost? > >>> > >>> Then you could just write the interface with html5 canvas, svg, > >>> javascript, or whatever. > >>> > >>> -Jonathan > >> > >> > >> That sounds feasible to me. > >> > >> .hc > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
