Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl?
Whether considering major or minor surgery; it helps that Pd is a GUI toolkit in its own right, albeit domain specific. Pd could rely more on its own widgets and internal message system to display dialog windows, thus reducing the nessecary amount of GUI-specific code. It is hard to explain in a few words but this experiment illustrates the approach, a generic mouse widget using an abstraction as its properties dialog: https://github.com/katjav/pd-mouse-trial A bonus of reusing Pd's powerful widgets: numbox (and here also the 2 dimensional mouse widget itself) can resize an object. No handles needed, imagine the lines of code being avoided this way. Katja On 8/27/19, Christof Ressi wrote: > Ideally we could manage to have the generic GUI interface as a compile time > option, so that the current Pd vanilla code could remain unchanged for > people who want to continue using the Tcl/Tk GUI. This would also mean that > the GUI interface could be as radical as possible, because it wouldn't > affect existing code/patches. > > In my dream world, Pd wouldn't know anything about its GUI editor. It would > just say: create the GUI part of "thing" for me and get notifications if > "thing" was moved, destroyed or clicked on. So no raw mouse events and > hitbox testing on the core (modern GUI frameworks like Qt already do this > automatically, and in a very optimized way). > > Christof > >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 04:52 Uhr >> Von: "Christof Ressi" >> An: "Miller Puckette" , Pd-List >> Betreff: Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? >> >> Hi, >> >> > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd >> > to >> > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. >> >> This is what I would like to avoid my all means :-) The Tcl commands are, >> well, just too Tcl specific. >> >> > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in >> > compatible >> > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems >> > like >> > major surgery. >> >> I think this is the way to go! It would certainly require major surgery >> but I think it would pay off tremendously in the future, because people >> could easily do alternative GUIs without forking the core. But first >> someone has to come up with a proof of concept. >> >> Christof >> >> >> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 03:43 Uhr >> > Von: "Miller Puckette" >> > An: "Christof Ressi" >> > Cc: pd-dev >> > Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? >> > >> > Well, possiblities: >> > >> > Rip the GUI out and replace it (this is done in Purr Data) >> > >> > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd >> > to >> > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. This was done once >> > by a very smart person and shown (I think) at the first Pure Data >> > Convention >> > (Graz!) Perhas Iohannes will remember who this was or know how to find >> > it. >> > Maybe it's even in the Pd convention book... >> > >> > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in >> > compatible >> > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems >> > like >> > major surgery. >> > >> > (previous suggestoin, lite version) - Hang onto Tcl/Tkfor dialogs and >> > the >> > like, but redo the "pd window" calls using some other toolkit (less >> > major >> > surgery, but then you're using two toolkits, ugh.) >> > >> > Do somtheing not int he above list (and that I haven't though of :) >> > >> > M >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:38:17AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: >> > > > Maybe I'm missing something obvious? >> > > >> > > Of course I did... We send raw Tcl commands from the core with the >> > > actual canvas coordinates and this complicates things because of how >> > > Tk's "scale" method works... >> > > >> > > Maybe it's time to eventually refactor the GUI messaging and use >> > > abstract commands instead of actual Tcl code, with logical coordinates >> > > instead of actual coordinates... This would mean that zooming could be >> > > implemented easily on the GUI side. >> > > &g
Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl?
Ideally we could manage to have the generic GUI interface as a compile time option, so that the current Pd vanilla code could remain unchanged for people who want to continue using the Tcl/Tk GUI. This would also mean that the GUI interface could be as radical as possible, because it wouldn't affect existing code/patches. In my dream world, Pd wouldn't know anything about its GUI editor. It would just say: create the GUI part of "thing" for me and get notifications if "thing" was moved, destroyed or clicked on. So no raw mouse events and hitbox testing on the core (modern GUI frameworks like Qt already do this automatically, and in a very optimized way). Christof > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 04:52 Uhr > Von: "Christof Ressi" > An: "Miller Puckette" , Pd-List > Betreff: Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? > > Hi, > > > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd to > > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. > > This is what I would like to avoid my all means :-) The Tcl commands are, > well, just too Tcl specific. > > > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in > > compatible > > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems like > > major surgery. > > I think this is the way to go! It would certainly require major surgery but I > think it would pay off tremendously in the future, because people could > easily do alternative GUIs without forking the core. But first someone has to > come up with a proof of concept. > > Christof > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 03:43 Uhr > > Von: "Miller Puckette" > > An: "Christof Ressi" > > Cc: pd-dev > > Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? > > > > Well, possiblities: > > > > Rip the GUI out and replace it (this is done in Purr Data) > > > > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd to > > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. This was done once > > by a very smart person and shown (I think) at the first Pure Data Convention > > (Graz!) Perhas Iohannes will remember who this was or know how to find it. > > Maybe it's even in the Pd convention book... > > > > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in > > compatible > > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems like > > major surgery. > > > > (previous suggestoin, lite version) - Hang onto Tcl/Tkfor dialogs and the > > like, but redo the "pd window" calls using some other toolkit (less major > > surgery, but then you're using two toolkits, ugh.) > > > > Do somtheing not int he above list (and that I haven't though of :) > > > > M > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:38:17AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > > > > Maybe I'm missing something obvious? > > > > > > Of course I did... We send raw Tcl commands from the core with the actual > > > canvas coordinates and this complicates things because of how Tk's > > > "scale" method works... > > > > > > Maybe it's time to eventually refactor the GUI messaging and use abstract > > > commands instead of actual Tcl code, with logical coordinates instead of > > > actual coordinates... This would mean that zooming could be implemented > > > easily on the GUI side. > > > > > > But what's more important: people can replace the Tk GUI with other > > > (better) GUIs. I think the libpd people would love that as well, because > > > apps could easily integrate Pd's GUI into their GUI framework of choice. > > > Also, people can offer alternative GUIs for Pd vanilla. Personally, I can > > > imagine writing a Qt GUI. This would be similar to how Supercollider has > > > alternative language clients which all talk to the Server via > > > well-defined OSC messages. > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate Pd's minimalism but a simple GUI should also be a *fast* > > > GUI. The Tk canvas implementation is actually pretty terrible > > > performance-wise. Moving an object in a larger patch maxes out a whole > > > core(!) on my Laptop. It appears that Tk simply redraws the whole canvas > > > :-( Any decent GUI framework should use some kind of spatial partitioning > > > to determine which part of the canvas actually needs to be redrawn. Qt's &
Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl?
Hi, > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd to > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. This is what I would like to avoid my all means :-) The Tcl commands are, well, just too Tcl specific. > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in compatible > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems like > major surgery. I think this is the way to go! It would certainly require major surgery but I think it would pay off tremendously in the future, because people could easily do alternative GUIs without forking the core. But first someone has to come up with a proof of concept. Christof > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 03:43 Uhr > Von: "Miller Puckette" > An: "Christof Ressi" > Cc: pd-dev > Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? > > Well, possiblities: > > Rip the GUI out and replace it (this is done in Purr Data) > > Write or find a Tcl parser and bind all the tcl comands coming from Pd to > new functions written for whatever toolkit you like. This was done once > by a very smart person and shown (I think) at the first Pure Data Convention > (Graz!) Perhas Iohannes will remember who this was or know how to find it. > Maybe it's even in the Pd convention book... > > Make an abstraction layer between Pd and the TCL calls, and swap in compatible > calls to another toolkit. This has been proposed a few times but seems like > major surgery. > > (previous suggestoin, lite version) - Hang onto Tcl/Tkfor dialogs and the > like, but redo the "pd window" calls using some other toolkit (less major > surgery, but then you're using two toolkits, ugh.) > > Do somtheing not int he above list (and that I haven't though of :) > > M > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:38:17AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > > > Maybe I'm missing something obvious? > > > > Of course I did... We send raw Tcl commands from the core with the actual > > canvas coordinates and this complicates things because of how Tk's "scale" > > method works... > > > > Maybe it's time to eventually refactor the GUI messaging and use abstract > > commands instead of actual Tcl code, with logical coordinates instead of > > actual coordinates... This would mean that zooming could be implemented > > easily on the GUI side. > > > > But what's more important: people can replace the Tk GUI with other > > (better) GUIs. I think the libpd people would love that as well, because > > apps could easily integrate Pd's GUI into their GUI framework of choice. > > Also, people can offer alternative GUIs for Pd vanilla. Personally, I can > > imagine writing a Qt GUI. This would be similar to how Supercollider has > > alternative language clients which all talk to the Server via well-defined > > OSC messages. > > > > > > > > I appreciate Pd's minimalism but a simple GUI should also be a *fast* GUI. > > The Tk canvas implementation is actually pretty terrible performance-wise. > > Moving an object in a larger patch maxes out a whole core(!) on my Laptop. > > It appears that Tk simply redraws the whole canvas :-( Any decent GUI > > framework should use some kind of spatial partitioning to determine which > > part of the canvas actually needs to be redrawn. Qt's QGraphicsScene does > > this pretty well (I've written a level editor where the view can easily > > contain 10 thousands of tiles and editing/zooming is smooth!). > > > > So I'm pretty frustated with Tk. A short-term solution could be to patch > > Tk's canvas code, but in the long run I think we need an abstract GUI > > interface, so that people can experiment with better GUI frameworks. > > > > > > > > Christof > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 00:30 Uhr > > > Von: "Christof Ressi" > > > An: pd-...@iem.at > > > Betreff: [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? > > > > > > Hi, I've been wondering why the zooming is implemented on the Pd core? > > > Tk's canvas has a scale method and people have been using to implement a > > > zoom feature, e.g. https://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=239833 > > > > > > Ideally, the core shouldn't have to know about the size of the GUI window > > > at all and just work with "logical" coordinates. The GUI can scale the > > > content to whatever size it wants and when communicating with the core it > > > would transform the mouse coordinates between logical and screen > > > coordinates. Some better GUI frameworks already do that for you (e.g. > > > Qt's QGraphicsScene/QGraphicView), but it shouldn't be too hard to do it > > > manually for Tk. This would also allow fractional zoom factors. > > > Unfortunately, Tk doesn't allow fractional font sizes (or has this > > > changed?), but we could have at least *some* steps between 100% and 200%. > > > Also, it would make the Pd core code much easier because we wouldn't have > > > to worry about zoom at all... > > > > > > This is just I've been wondering abo
Re: [PD] [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl?
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious? Of course I did... We send raw Tcl commands from the core with the actual canvas coordinates and this complicates things because of how Tk's "scale" method works... Maybe it's time to eventually refactor the GUI messaging and use abstract commands instead of actual Tcl code, with logical coordinates instead of actual coordinates... This would mean that zooming could be implemented easily on the GUI side. But what's more important: people can replace the Tk GUI with other (better) GUIs. I think the libpd people would love that as well, because apps could easily integrate Pd's GUI into their GUI framework of choice. Also, people can offer alternative GUIs for Pd vanilla. Personally, I can imagine writing a Qt GUI. This would be similar to how Supercollider has alternative language clients which all talk to the Server via well-defined OSC messages. I appreciate Pd's minimalism but a simple GUI should also be a *fast* GUI. The Tk canvas implementation is actually pretty terrible performance-wise. Moving an object in a larger patch maxes out a whole core(!) on my Laptop. It appears that Tk simply redraws the whole canvas :-( Any decent GUI framework should use some kind of spatial partitioning to determine which part of the canvas actually needs to be redrawn. Qt's QGraphicsScene does this pretty well (I've written a level editor where the view can easily contain 10 thousands of tiles and editing/zooming is smooth!). So I'm pretty frustated with Tk. A short-term solution could be to patch Tk's canvas code, but in the long run I think we need an abstract GUI interface, so that people can experiment with better GUI frameworks. Christof > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 um 00:30 Uhr > Von: "Christof Ressi" > An: pd-...@iem.at > Betreff: [PD-dev] Why don't we implement zooming in Tcl? > > Hi, I've been wondering why the zooming is implemented on the Pd core? Tk's > canvas has a scale method and people have been using to implement a zoom > feature, e.g. https://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=239833 > > Ideally, the core shouldn't have to know about the size of the GUI window at > all and just work with "logical" coordinates. The GUI can scale the content > to whatever size it wants and when communicating with the core it would > transform the mouse coordinates between logical and screen coordinates. Some > better GUI frameworks already do that for you (e.g. Qt's > QGraphicsScene/QGraphicView), but it shouldn't be too hard to do it manually > for Tk. This would also allow fractional zoom factors. Unfortunately, Tk > doesn't allow fractional font sizes (or has this changed?), but we could have > at least *some* steps between 100% and 200%. Also, it would make the Pd core > code much easier because we wouldn't have to worry about zoom at all... > > This is just I've been wondering about when having a look at the zooming code > and coming from my experience of developing GUI apps with Qt. Maybe I'm > missing something obvious? > > Christof > > > > > ___ > Pd-dev mailing list > pd-...@lists.iem.at > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
