On 02/17/2014 10:48 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think that the way forward with the pd/gui separation is to work on the low
hanging fruit, things that are easy to fix. Let the hard parts for later,
which will only be a couple areas.
So that means looking at everywhere where sys_gui() or sys_vgui() is called,
and seeing how the raw Tcl in those calls can be converted into Tcl procs. The
syntax for calling Tcl procs is very close to a Pd list, so that is an easy way
to get close.
The Pd dev community has always been plagued with a desire for grand plans
before starting work. And that has proven to mean nothing happens.
No sane person is going to do incremental work without a plan on GUI
software in 2014 that only has a single undo.
-Jonathan
.hc
On 13/01/2014 15:32, Dan Wilcox wrote:
As Hans has proposed for years, IMO this is really the only way to
perhaps solve the "PD gui development doesn't move fast enough" problem
in the long term. In this case, Miller would have the core (in libpd) &
the pd-vanilla wrapper gui formally separated while everyone else can
then use the same libpd core within other flavors. The DSP core is the
heart and soul and I see no reason to try and change that in any way.
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
