2009/10/16 Chris McCormick <chris_at_mccormick.cx>:
> That's true, but relying on it is strongly discouraged. You're supposed to
> treat execution order as "undefined" if it isn't explicit, i.e. if there is
> "connection fanning" and you can't immediately see at a glance what the
> execution order will be. The way to make execution order explicit and visually
> obvious is to use the [trigger] object, which always fires right to left. I
> think this is due to a goal of Pd being that patches can be logically followed
> even if you only have a print-out or napkin sketch of a patch, outside of the
> execution environment.
>> 8/ Some myth about max being more 'visual' means people drop their guard
>
> I think this issue is complicated because there are two different ways in which
> data flows through patches. Audio data flows in a way that looks concurrent. To
> a piece of audio data, it looks like every ugen on the patch is running
> simultaneously. A ugen won't get run until all of its inlets are satisfied with
> data. Control data and messages on the other hand, have a definite execution
> order. Objects will execute when their 'hot' inlets receive data - you don't
> have to send data to every inlet to make them execute.
>
> So in terms of audio data, I think it's immediately obvious what's going on
> when you look at the graph. Unlike textual programming languages, you can see
> at a glance what is happening. With textual programming languages you need to
> trace what is happening at each point of execution in your program before you
> can understand how the data flows through it. Note that I have not done much
> programming in languages like Haskell so this could be lies!
>
> When it comes to the message passing side, once again you can see pretty
> quickly what's going on, but you much more have to read what's in the boxes
> (like regular programming) to understand how the patch is executed. This is
> because message passing networks are not fake-concurrent, whilst audio networks
> are fake-concurrent.
>
> Graphs are a good way of mentally modelling what is going on. Languages which
> use graphs explicitly don't require you to hold the graph in your head since
> it's there on the screen. Maybe? I dunno.
>
> Chris.
>
> -------------------
> http://mccormick.cx
>
--
http://yaxu.org/
Received on Sat Oct 17 2009 - 21:35:47 BST