Yes, this is great news. I didn't mean to sound pessimistic earlier, just realistic.
My 2cents, though is that the l2ork website is hard to navigate :D On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Ivica Bukvic <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, there is a concerted effort on the pd-l2ork side of things. We now > technically have 3 devs contributing code regularly to git and 3 additional > contributors. > > On Sep 23, 2014 11:14 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <[email protected]> wrote: > I had to bring up semantics because "developer" means alot of different > things to alot of different people. > > Also, I didn't want to bring up vanilla versus non-vanilla, just pointing out > that the number of people who could help Hans put out a new version of > extended is rather low. IMO a languishing extended is bad news for Pd in > general as it's the go to distribution for most people using Pd ... but > that's probably for another debate. We all work on what's important to us, > I'm just sad again to see that the priorities don't seem to match up with a > concerted joint effort, at least as compared to my experience working with > OpenFrameworks. But of course what's considered a "concerted, joint effort" > is also up to interpretation :D > > Hopefully we'll have a development meet up at some point soon. > > I personally feel guilty seeing things like this come up because I have the > *ability* to do it, but I don't have the time when trying to balance life, > work, & art. Honestly, this is when I know I'm probably getting in too deep > ... > > This is why I suggested "graduate students". At this point, up keep and > versioning should be supported by some sort of institution, if possible, and > by people who could be rotated in and out. > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Ivica Bukvic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, I guess you can call me a "developer," whatever that means--I don't >> care that much about titles. Yet, I would argue that as far as low level >> stuff is concerned in recent years pd-l2ork has certainly pushed the >> envelope in terms of core development. Even the feature that has earned me >> the title in quotations delves so deep into the core that currently it >> cannot be implemented in either vanilla or extended without significant >> changes even though it retains full backwards compatibility. I would also >> argue it is essential and offers a slew of features that are unavailable in >> any other implementation of presets. >> >> Pd-l2ork's greatest deterrent is exclusivity to Linux, which was initially a >> conscious decision to allow for faster development while addressing the lack >> of manpower. But that is about to change once we complete port to Qt >> library. We already transitioned to Tkpath quite a while ago which allowed >> us to use a full SVG-based canvas, so I have no doubt we will be able to do >> this again. Once this is done, we won't have to circumnavigate exceptions Tk >> library requires in order to be compliant with different platforms and I >> would argue in turn that will result in faster development. So, if you are >> really interested in pushing the development of non-vanilla pd I think you >> should heed some of Jonathan's advice and look for ways how community can >> work together in combining the "best of" and engaging developers and >> "developers" alike who have shown dedication to the cause. But before that >> can be accomplished, the community should consider agreeing on design >> choices. For instance, pd-l2ork came into existence because it focuses on >> more nimble development at the expense of potential loss of backwards >> compatibility (even though after 4 years of development the only >> incompatibility we infatuated is correcting buggy positioning of iemgui >> objects, which is cosmetic in nature) because a good chunk of that >> compatibility stems from buggy implementations that stuck around long enough >> that they became a part of the standard (e.g. iemgui's buggy positioning of >> objects that are arbitrarily offset from their x and y positions, as >> reported by the pd script), which is unfortunate. >> >> Best, >> >> Ico >> >> On Sep 23, 2014 9:21 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I disagree. Your example lists what? 2 more developers? I'm talking about >> "developers" as in people working the C code, build scripts, tcl/tk etc aka >> people who could, theoretically, help push out a new Pd-extended release. >> True, we have plenty of people working on externals, but this is a problem >> for someone who can go deeper. >> >> I still maintain that the number of low level developers to overall users >> (non-developers) is relatively low. >> >> On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> However, your description of the user/developer ratio doesn't ring true to >>> me. There's actually a surplus of developers and development energy-- I >>> count two implementations of presets in the last year or two (in Pd-l2ork >>> and the Chocolate et Coffee lib) which are in addition to however many >>> already exist on svn and the Pd forum. >> >> -------- >> Dan Wilcox >> @danomatika >> danomatika.com >> robotcowboy.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika > danomatika.com > robotcowboy.com > > > > > -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
