I am finding often that I need to attach a [t b i] whenever I am patching. Is this a common pattern or is there something I might be missing. I attached an example I am running into. I am trying to cause output from [>] whenever either input changes.

message

number

I am finding often that I need to attach a [t b i] whenever I am patching. 

common-patterns-t

I tend to use [t] a lot, maybe the object I use the most. I find it useful to prevent any "bug" regarding execution order, and makes the patch easier to read if you go back to it after a while or send it to someone.

[t b i]/[t b f] and co. is indeed a very common pattern (at least in my patches) when you want a cold inlet behave as a hot one.

For a few operators (-, /, =, and their gen an jit versions), you can also invert inlets with a !. For example [!- 1] will subtract anything coming from the hot inlet from 1, while [- 1] does the opposite. Depending on your patch design, it might help you get rid of a few [t b i].

I tend to use [t] a lot, maybe the object I use the most. I find it useful to prevent any "bug" regarding execution order, and makes the patch easier to read if you go back to it after a while or send it to someone.
[t b i]/[t b f] and co. is indeed a very common pattern (at least in my patches) when you want a cold inlet behave as a hot one.

[pak] is a more recent object, it allows less idiomatic Max programming. 

Using [pak] before a math object adds unnecessary computation/list handling. 

[t b i] is the most common way. 
[pak] is a more recent object, it allows less idiomatic Max programming. 
Using [pak] before a math object adds unnecessary computation/list handling. 
Use and abuse [t]. This is the way.

there is nothing wrong with t b i and his family.

[pak] is only cool until you want to set more inputs than having hot ones.

Common Patterns: [t]