sebpiq
commented
1 year ago @Reinissance WebPd takes a very different approach than these other alternatives that you mentioned (you haven't mentioned libpd which can be compiled for the web as well, etc ...). These are full-blown apps, they embed the whole of Pure Data, and running them in the web is more or less a hack. It works, but it's heavy, takes a lot of space, it's hard to extend, and interface with JavaScript, and I believe that it isn't sustainable / maintainable in the long run.
WebPd is a compiler, so it aims at generating a code that is as lean as possible, and which can be directly manipulated and modified. Therefore, in theory, it enables maximal integrability and minimum CPU and memory footprint. Also, since it is modular, and doesn't depend on Pure Data, it could become a go-to library for audio programming on the web.
So both solutions have pluses and minuses :
- the first solution (compiling Pd for the web) has the advantage that you "just" have to compile the existing code, and you get many objects with little effort. The inconvenient is that it is a big black box, you can run a patch, but that's about it. It's very hard to extend, integrate, customize.
- WebPd has the advantage that you get just code, so you really can do whatever you want with it, it is the opposite of a black-box. The inconvenient is that you (I! and I hope with the help of others soon ;) ) have to reimplement the whole engine, and all the objects and that's a lot of work. But I believe that eventually the fact that you can integrate it anywhere will really pay off, potentially even bringing new use-cases for Pure Data (building complex audio apps, using WebPd as audio engine ?)
Does that make sense ?
Reinissance
This is a very interesting project, nice work. What is the current status? Are there plans to maintain it and/or would you be open to PRs or, worst case, relinquishing control to another maintainer...?