On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 02:11:13PM +0100, alex wrote:
> I agree there is no line to draw between pd/max and other programming
> languages. The only real difference is that pd and max require use of
> the mouse.
I can't speak for Max since I don't use it, but I would say that Pd is more
fundementally limited as a general purpose programming language than, say,
Supercollider. Although it's turing complete, it lacks a number of built-in
programmatic utilities and datastructures which we have come to expect from
modern programming languages, and that really limits its utility in this
respect. For example, Pd lacks a string type, a hashmap, and it lacks the
ability to efficiently dynamically instantiate many objects at once. This is
one of the reasons that doing a high-degree of polyphony is difficult in Pd but
easy in Supercollider.
I think that the reason that it's still incredibly popular, and useful, is that
lots of people don't use it as a programming language, but as a DSP designer
and composition tool, and also because of it's noob-friendly visual interface.
Instructing people visually is very easy.
Chris.
-------------------
http://mccormick.cx
Received on Tue Sep 01 2009 - 14:23:10 BST