On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Jonathan Wilkes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Things maybe acceptable to us PD "grey beards", but at some point it would
>> be nice to find a way to enter the modern, multicore multithreaded world.
>> Moores law has shifted from clock speed to "just add more cores" years ago
>> now, so it's not like "buy a faster machine" is going to magically solve
>> single threaded speed issues.
>
> It's not acceptable, but if you want to move forward _and_ do work that will
> be in sync with or accepted into Pd vanilla I don't see a way forward. I
> can't even get help docs into Pd vanilla, and they were written to the PDDP
> spec that this community came up with and approved. And as you know, there's
> a publicly viewable list of the same exact frustrations from all kinds of
> developers with various styles of communication.
>
Indeed. This reminds of discussions on the pd dev list, some 7 years ago (!),
which ultimately resulted in the Vibrez project a closed fork of Pd-devel,
which added (among other things) basic multi-threading and a revamped GUI.
http://grrrr.org/research/software/vibrez/
http://grrrr.org/pub/grill-2007-pdcon-vibrez.pdf
IMHO, the introduction to that paper makes for sobering reading for anyone
considering spending any significant effort on core Pd development.
Jamie
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
