so let's see...Who´s working with what so far? I´d love to join a team and start learning how to code with one of the toolkits.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>wrote: > > So all those interested in a new GUI should start working on it, there is > lots > of interest. Then we can incrementally change pd itself as there is a > need. > > .hc > > On 01/21/2013 02:48 PM, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote: > > 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
