[javascript-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jit.displays - supported in JS ?

Quote: Jeremy Bernstein wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 15:05
----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Am 19.06.2007 um 14:22 schrieb Mattijs Kneppers:
> 
> > I do understand your point and I'll quit ranting about this topic  
> > until the moment we have exchanged enough cold beverages to get to  
> > know each other a bit better. Promised.
> 
> Offer accepted.

Great :) Actually there is a chance that I'll be in Berlin in the end of august, together with my colleague Jeroen Hofs (Eboman), who I heard you already met in Paris a few years ago. I'll drop you a mail when things get practical.

> 
> > I am -not- whining about new features. I am whining about a purely  
> > theoretical attitude towards future developments. But with a few  
> > practical consequences. I am happy that you agree -in theory- about  
> > my opinion that through-and-through consistensy would be ideal.
> 
> Of course I'm in agreement! Who wouldn't be. In what way is it a  
> _bad_ idea to have a consistent development environment? I'm  
> contrary, but not completely daft. ;)
> 
> > But this has a practical side effect. When vade requests such  
> > consistency, I wouldn't expect the reply to be 'if you get it  
> > working, no matter how, you'll be fine', but 'we'll write it down  
> > and consider it, in theory, sometime, ever'. The latter is so much  
> > more satisfactory to someone that takes max very seriously.
> 
> Well, I'm a practically minded person, and I'm not a programmer by  
> training. I learned how to program through MaxMSP. And my very first  
> priority in any case you could describe to me is: can you get it  
> working at all? If you can, I'm liable to believe that that's great!  
> Not just good enough, but splendid, because you've solved your problem.
> 
> I appreciate elegant, clever, concise design as much or more as the  
> next guy. But I appreciate a solved problem 10x more than a soluble  
> problem which remains unsolved because of the theoretical rigidity of  
> the solver.
> 
> > I take Max dead serious, as I know vade does. The fact alone that I  
> > work with max at least 6 days a week for more than 8 hours a day,  
> > illustrates that I .. appreciate what max is now. Note,  
> > 'appreciation' is an understatement. Please don't interpret my  
> > comments as negative critisism, Max is absolutely great.
> 
> I don't understand any of your comments as negative. Nor as  
> frustrating or irritating. Simply as idealistic. Idealism is great,  
> but it's not ideal when trying to solve problems. And don't worry -  
> we respect your seriousness - we're pretty serious about it too. 

That's seriously appreciated.

> I  
> guess I just want to point out that serious people can disagree about  
> a serious topic. Or agree, but come to different conclusions.
> 
> > 'if it works, it works'.. this is terribly untrue. I see so much  
> > people end up hopelessly confused with max because their patch just  
> > stopped working. It became just those two subpatchers too  
> > complicated for them. But if they would have dropped the 'if it  
> > works, it works' mentality and thought a little more about  
> > structuring their patches their project would have ended up as a  
> > beautiful piece of media art. Note, these are the people that  
> > decide that max is too complicated for them. You will never see a  
> > forum post or a support mail from someone like that.
> 
> We're working on a number of things right now which should serve to  
> help bridge some of the inconsistency problems in Max, especially for  
> new and intermediate users of the system. There's a lot happening  
> under the hood as well, which will make future development of the  
> program much, much more "tight", as well. 

That's great, looking forward. Let's say that if there is ever to be a users-that-submit-their-ideas-about-future-concepts group, hereby I volunteer.

> What we do about some of  
> the backward compatibility issues is still up in the air, and not  
> likely to be solved immediately.
> 
> > Which doesn't mean one doesn't have to be practical and accept that  
> > the cycling development team is small, that you have to deal with  
> > backward compatibility, that max is only near perfect, that ibm  
> > develops applications with much more inconsistencies that you'd pay  
> > 100 grand for.
> 
> Word.
> 
> lg
> jb


Regards,
Mattijs
--
SmadSteck - http://www.smadsteck.nl
Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling