jit.displays - supported in JS ?

Hey Jeremy, as always, thanks for your elaborate reply.

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.

Just to round this up properly for now I'll add a few comments to what you said.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

Cheers,

Mattijs

Quote: Jeremy Bernstein wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 12:30
----------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. Although I agree with you in principle, and imagine that
> there's a programming language out there which does what you want,
> you are overlooking the 20-year development of MaxMSP, the need for
> backward compatibility, and the notion that we've probably considered
> most of your suggestions at various points, as well. And that it gets
> a little boring to keep reading the same email from you over and over
> again.
>
> Mattijs: How about now?
>
> C74: No, not yet.
>
> Mattijs: ... How about now?
>
> C74: No, not yet.
>
> Mattijs: Hm... *sniff* how about now?
>
> C74:
>
>
> So, come on Mattjis, please give it a little bit of a rest. We're
> working continuously on making the absolute most bestest MaxMSP we
> can imagine, and we know that you're going to love what we've come up
> with. Nevertheless, there are a few things that Max will likely never
> be. Through-and-through consistent is probably one of them.
>
> There are very specific technical reasons why Jitter objects are
> suitable for JS instantiation, while other objects are not. If you've
> programmed any Max or MSP objects in C, you probably already know
> what these are. The day when all Max objects share a common interface
> may come, but until that time, some things will require futzing. But
> isn't it amazing what you can do, even given all the restrictions and
> workarounds?
>
> So, quit yer griping and get back to work! Next time you're in
> Berlin, I'll treat you to a cold beverage to celebrate everything you
> can't have today.
>
> jb
>
> Am 19.06.2007 um 11:42 schrieb Mattijs Kneppers:
>
> >
> > Quote: Jeremy Bernstein wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 22:32
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >> I get that. I really do.
> >>
> >> But that's religion, in my opinion. Max needs to be about being
> >> practical sometimes. Be practical, check out how fast you solved the
> >> problem, hide the patchcords. Celebrate with a cold beverage.
> >>
> >> jb
> >>
> >
> > Dear Cycling '74,
> >
> > Wondering.. is this the moment to construct a solid, smooth but
> > urgent 4 or 5 alinea's message? Because.. what you say is not true.
> > Or shall I write a letter (on paper, in an envelope, with a stamp)
> > to the cycling office in which I explain this? Because this could
> > be quite valuable information. Or should I simply come over to San
> > Francisco and bring my laptop? Because then you would certainly be
> > convinced.
> >
> > Ok. I chose for the last option.
> >
> > But before I arrive, let me make a two-sentence summary of what I
> > am going to tell you.
> >
> > "When a project gets larger than 10 different subpatchers that have
> > to communicate in an intricate way, max patching becomes
> > programming. In programming, you must utilize every single method
> > to make your code more transparent."
> >
> > See you in SF. ;)
> >
> > Mattijs
> > --
> > SmadSteck - http://www.smadsteck.nl
> > Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
>
>
----------------------------------------------------