Jan 14, 2009 at 2:57am
-Does a DOM exist for Max patches?
Please tell me I’m missing something!
Jan 14, 2009 at 7:53am
Quote: Brennon Bortz wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:57
The reference page for the thispatcher object, and
Jan 14, 2009 at 12:18pm
> The reference page for the thispatcher object, and
If by “You mean that stuff?”, you mean, “Are these examples of horrible
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:05am
The snark was very amusing, but I would have to
We’re always interested in specific and constructive
Jan 15, 2009 at 1:39am
Quote: Gregory Taylor wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 16:05
Jan 15, 2009 at 1:48am
I think this refernce guide wasn’t included at some point, but I haven’t opened the main help page in a while. It’s there now.
So that’s a good reference if you ask me. I think the fundamental problem here is it is not linked to from other places. Like the js help file and js reference doc. (or did I just miss it there too?)
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:55pm
Adam Murray wrote:
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:58pm
Adam Murray wrote:
Jan 15, 2009 at 5:47pm
Quote: Brennon Bortz wrote on Thu, 15 January 2009 04:58
Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering more specifically what you think is missing. Are you expecting some sort of elaborate DOM structure for everything in the patch that’s similar to the HTML DOM? It doesn’t really work that way. You can access the patcher and it’s parents, or find specific objects by their scripting name, and iterate over all the objects. But it’s much more limited than the HTML DOM in a browser and you can’t traverse it the same way.
Jan 16, 2009 at 12:23am
Hi Adam–thanks for your response!
Quote: Adam Murray wrote on Thu, 15 January 2009 17:47
I’m thinking more along these lines: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html
Or, the good ol’ Netscape DOM.
And with these other resources, I’m perfectly happy! Where does the Max documentation show how and where its own classes fit into these models, though?
> Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering more specifically what you think is missing. Are you expecting some sort of elaborate DOM structure for everything in the patch that’s similar to the HTML DOM? It doesn’t really work that way. You can access the patcher and it’s parents, or find specific objects by their scripting name, and iterate over all the objects. But it’s much more limited than the HTML DOM in a browser and you can’t traverse it the same way.
Jan 16, 2009 at 9:58am
Quote: Gregory Taylor wrote on Thu, 15 January 2009 00:05
With all due respect (and I mean it genuinely), it’s really not up to the developer to make this determination.
> We’re always interested in specific and constructive
I do appreciate C74′s willingness to work on things like this! There are certainly far poorer examples of documentation in the world, and I do appreciate that which we do have for Max/MSP. There are, however, lots of posts here in the forums from users struggling to make sense of the JS documentation–I’m not the first to speak up. Also, not everyone is able to specifically point out just what should be changed about or added to the documentation–this doesn’t let C74 off the hook though! :) For the price we pay for Max/MSP, we should be able to expect updates to the documentation where it is lacking–even when there hasn’t been any hand-holding by the end users.
That said, I hope that I’ve provided some more specific examples in my previous post in this topic, as well as here:
Jan 16, 2009 at 7:22pm
Here’s another example, taken from the Patcher object section:
p = this.patcher;
If fullscreen() and dirty() are methods of the Patcher object, why aren’t they actually listed below as methods? Instead of having a list of ALL methods available to a class, it seems that there is a truncated listing with other available methods or properties scattered around in the examples. I’m glad to have found them in the examples, but how are we to know that we’re actually seeing everything available? What if something didn’t happen to make it into an example?
Jan 16, 2009 at 7:28pm
i also don’t quite follow your question.
seems unambiguous to me.
if you find messages that don’t work when you think they should, please let ‘em know. otherwise, i think the way js works in max, and the way the documentation is worded and organized takes some getting used to.
Quote: Brennon Bortz wrote on Fri, 16 January 2009 12:22
Jan 16, 2009 at 7:51pm
Quote: robtherich wrote on Fri, 16 January 2009 19:28
The statement is perfectly unambiguous to me, as well. This isn’t what I was concerned with here.
> if it’s a thispatcher message/attribute, it’s a Patcher method.
I can’t find “dirty” or “fullscreen” listed anywhere in the [thispatcher] reference. They are, however, shown in the .maxhelp file for [thispatcher]. Keep reading…
> if you find messages that don’t work when you think they should, please let ‘em know.
I have done so, referenced above in this message, and elsewhere.
> otherwise, i think the way js works in max, and the way the documentation is worded and organized takes some getting used to.
This is my point entirely. $400 dollars and plenty of other money thrown at multiple upgrades has bought me one hell of a program–I couldn’t live without it. On the other hand, it hasn’t bought me clear, concise, and complete documentation specifically with regards to scripting. We shouldn’t have to go hunting and pecking all over the place to find a method we’re looking for. If I’m looking for a method that pertains to a particular class, I should be able to find it in the complete list of properties and methods for THAT class. Is that really too much to ask?
I make no bones about it–I’m very pleased with the new documentation style. C74 has really come a long way there. However, I think I’ve made several valid points regarding these issues both here and elsewhere. If the best response I can get is, “Well…get used to it,” then, well…that just really bites.
Furthermore, I’m not trolling here. I think there are some phenomenal capabilities in scripting waiting to be used–I’m just struggling to figure out how to unlock these with incomplete documentation.
Jan 16, 2009 at 10:15pm
“clean” is shown as an available message in thispatcher.maxhelp, but not listed as an available method for the Wind object. It is, in fact, a legal method for the Wind object, however.
Jan 16, 2009 at 10:45pm
Quote: Brennon Bortz wrote on Fri, 16 January 2009 14:15
Hey Brennon, I think this is really good feedback for C74.
At some point I got a handle on how to use js for my purposes, but I remember there was a lot of frustration at first. I’ll try to be better about giving this kind of feedback in the future when I notice holes in the docs.
If we’re persistent and patient and keep pushing for things to get better, things will get better. It may take a while though, they’re a small company and they’ve been busy pulling off some amazing feats these last couple years, so I’m not all that surprised things like this haven’t gotten the attention they need. But that’s what user feedback is for, right?
Jan 17, 2009 at 12:23am
Quote: Adam Murray wrote on Fri, 16 January 2009 22:45
I will admit that my assumptions as to why these “holes” exist may not be accurate, as there’s really no way for me to know! Nevertheless, the fact is that what I’ve specifically asked for wouldn’t take more than a week’s time for someone who has the Max source available and already knows the extension. True, this wouldn’t solve the problem altogether, but it would be a wonderful start!
Jan 17, 2009 at 12:49am
Quote: Brennon Bortz wrote on Fri, 16 January 2009 16:23
From David Z himself (http://cycling74.com/story/2009/1/15/112631/799):
“I think it would be safe to say that Cycling ’74 operates in a manner that, by comparison to Ableton, could be characterized as complete and utter chaos”
That might have something to do with it ;)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.