updated once agin:
http://piratepad.net/pPEAhgQS00
i've kept the old version down there for comparison, and eventually to
cancel the corrections I've made.
Please edit directly or comment, correct!
best,
n
Le 24/01/13 11:19, Nicolas Montgermont a écrit :
Le 23/01/13 20:16, András Murányi a écrit :
I think the first paragraph is lovely and we shall keep it as it is,
to avoid extra iterations.
I don't wholeheartedly agree with the rewrite of the 2nd paragraph:
I think as well it must be corrected.
the points about pd being free and being available in source are
missing now,
I agree for free. For the sources, as the first line of the text says
it's an open source software, I am not sure it's necessary.
as well as a the point that pd-extended is more than
vanilla+externals but it's also patched.
I don't think it's specially relevant when you want to explain
Pd-extended in one line.
Also, afaik, vanilla is not "written by" Miller but rather
"maintained" by him as it contains code from various authors.
please edit, I think it's just a question of adding "mainly" somewhere.
So, at the end, I personally prefer how this paragraphed looked
before the last commit.
All this work being quite subjective (as it is free text not program
code) *please* give some reasons/rationale when you make change
changes: why did you do what you did, what is the improvement?
Otherwise we might just keep changing until the end of times :o)
You are right:
What I wanted to do here is trying to equilibrate the informations. I
think it's much more relevant for a newcomer to know what is PD vs Pd
extended, than to know Pd is available for IRIX. For me the text is
more looking like a technical explanation around Pd, than an
introduction to the Pd universe. For example, GEM was not mentionned
once in the whole text, but cyclone was. In the end, it is more an
introduction for developpers, than for users. What I think we must
correct. It's a matter of balancing the informations, and to start
from the beginning.
I don't think we need the extra paragraph about graphical
programming, but a picture of an actual patch would tell a lot
(without words).
I disagree. The whole point of Pd is patching, but the word is only
used once in the text in the sentence:
It is easy to extend Pd by nesting reusable patches ("abstractions")
or by utilising object classes ("externals").
No words are written on what is a patch. And I think it's totally
fundamental.
I don't support mixing the 3rd and the 4th paragraph either - they
are two different points (extendability, history).
If you want. IMHO, Pd extendability can be introduced in a sentence
where Pd basic usage needs a paragraph. Max explanations worth a look
for comparisons with pd's:
http://cycling74.com/whatismax/
I think as well the sentence from the 4th paragraph:
The core of Pd (aka Pd Vanilla) is written and maintained by Miller
Puckette and includes the work of many developers, making the whole
package very much a community effort.
is redundant now.
It should be nice to have other opinions on all that?
We are close to publishing :)
Best,
n
--
http://nim.on.free.fr
_______________________________________________
Pdweb mailing list
Pdweb@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb
--
http://nim.on.free.fr
_______________________________________________
Pdweb mailing list
Pdweb@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb
