Processing 1.0 - Processing Discourse - Older Processing versions

mulder

Older Processing versions
Feb 11^th, 2010, 7:05am

So many code examples were written under prior versions and haven't been updated to work with Processing 1.x. For people that want to run those projects, it's impossible without a version used when it was created, but you don't have a repository for the older versions.

So that code become useless; you can't learn from it because you can't run it.

This has got to change. You need to provide a repository for all the older versions of Processing, and stop playing around with the syntax all the time; this only exacerbates the problem of the syntax you've already changed from prior versions to newer versions. Make up your mind and then leave it alone.

In the meantime, what link can we use to access the older versions (not building it ourselves)?

PhiLho

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #1 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 8:32am

Quote:

you can't learn from it because you can't run it

You can't learn from it because it is obsolete...

Quote:

This has got to change. You need to provide a repository for all the older versions of Processing

As long as you pay for server space and bandwidth, why not?

Quote:

stop playing around with the syntax all the time

A frozen language is a dead language (same for API). If you don't make it evolve, it won't improve.

Quote:

Make up your mind and then leave it alone.

So, you are the new boss?

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #2 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 8:47am

Quote:
You can't learn from it because it is obsolete...
No, it's not obsolete; some syntax has changed, that's all.

Quote:
As long as you pay for server space and bandwidth, why not?
There's plenty of free server space available for file sharing.

Quote:
A frozen language is a dead language (same for API). If you don't make it evolve, it won't improve.
Nobody mentioned freezing a language; just stop changing the syntax arbitrarily, and make any necessary changes from each version to the next readily accessible. As it stands, all changes are not accessible.

Quote:
So, you are the new boss?
Condescending to others who advocate a different viewpoint than yours isn't helping you.

subpixel

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #3 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 9:38am

How about approaching this in another direction...

What code examples, in particular, do you mean?

Are they tutorials for which there is no new tutorial with the new/current syntax/API?

Has someone posted code for some project they worked on, and you want to 'steal' bits of it for your own purpose?.. and you don't understand how it works to be able to make it work with the current versions of Processing? Perhaps you can ask for some assistance converting the (one might hope relatively few) examples that you 'need' to keep going with what you're doing.

You are currently behaving badly, complaining about a free product as though it should provide the same level of support as for a mega-corporate-built system/application (at great expense).

-spxl

Processing: subpixels.com, OpenProcessing.org | VJ portfolio: SPXL.TV

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #4 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 10:37am

subpixel wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 9:38am:

How about approaching this in another direction...

What code examples, in particular, do you mean
Various; too numerous to mention.

Are they tutorials for which there is no new tutorial with the new/current syntax/API
I don't know. If I don't understand the former syntax, that precludes understanding the current syntax and being able to change the old code to work.

Has someone posted code for some project they worked on, and you want to 'steal' bits of it for your own purpose.. and you don't understand how it works to be able to make it work with the current versions of Processing
I don't want to steal any code; I want to make it run so I can experiment with the output.

Perhaps you can ask for some assistance converting the (one might hope relatively few) examples that you 'need' to keep going with what you're doing.
Already did that, and that person is also having problems, even though they are far more experienced in Processing than I am.

You are currently behaving badly, complaining about a free product as though it should provide the same level of support as for a mega-corporate-built system/application (at great expense).
No, I'm not behaving badly at all. Disagreeing with the constant changing of the code which makes it impossible for anyone to go back and run older code is nothing more than my opinion being different than yours. As I mentioned previously, there's no shortage of free server space for hosting those older versions, so the developers should be using it.

-spxl

subpixel

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #5 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 12:21pm

Well, ultimately it comes down to what are you trying to learn? These "too numerous to mention" examples... what are they examples of? Basic coding, advanced coding, basic APIs, advanced APIs, simple demos or entire games/applications?...

If you are trying to learn to program (generally), there are many resources in many different (computer) languages, and techniques are often applicable across languages.

If you are trying to learn how to use Processing, it does not make sense to learn how it used to work. If you really want to be a Processing archaeologist, you should be prepared to get your hands dirty.

Processing is Java. I can't imagine the *syntax* has really changed much. Perhaps the APIs have changed (eg parameter order). And on that, Processing's API is relatively simple. Is it the Processing core, or some other library you are having problems with? If you don't care to cite an example I can only guess what sort of problems you are having.

As for the behaving badly notion, I can only direct you to examine your language, which is more demanding than suggesting:

eg: "developers should be using..." vs "developers could be using"

So far you seem to not even want to bother with supplying an example of your specific problems when asked for it by someone trying to help you, and you are asking far more of others.

Balance.

-spxl

Processing: subpixels.com, OpenProcessing.org | VJ portfolio: SPXL.TV

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #6 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 1:39pm

[quote author=7A7C6B7960716C65090 link=1265900732/5#5 date=1265919691]Well, ultimately it comes down to what are you trying to learn? These "too numerous to mention" examples... what are they examples of? Basic coding, advanced coding, basic APIs, advanced APIs, simple demos or entire games/applications?...

I don't know, since I'm not a programmer. I see many examples of things that look interesting to me and to list them all would be very time-consuming for everyone involved.

If you are trying to learn to program (generally), there are many resources in many different (computer) languages, and techniques are often applicable across languages.

True. But at the present time I'm more interested in creating algorithmic art with Processing.

If you are trying to learn how to use Processing, it does not make sense to learn how it used to work. If you really want to be a Processing archaeologist, you should be prepared to get your hands dirty.

I don't necessarily want to learn how it used to work, but if neither I nor anyone else at present is able to make it run under Processing 1.x, then I would need the old version it was created with to run it.

Processing is Java. I can't imagine the *syntax* has really changed much. Perhaps the APIs have changed (eg parameter order). And on that, Processing's API is relatively simple. Is it the Processing core, or some other library you are having problems with?

It could be both the core and/or a library. For example. a library that used to be called gaLibrary has changed to ai_ga; also, framerate changed to frameRate; dnaLength () is no longer a function; makeChromosome is not a function; etc. See this example for exactly what I mean: http://robotacid.com/PBeta/eye4anEye/index.html. If you don't care to cite an example I can only guess what sort of problems you are having.

As for the behaving badly notion, I can only direct you to examine your language, which is more demanding than suggesting:

eg: "developers should be using..." vs "developers could be using"

There's no demand there; that's something you're inferring.

PhiLho

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #7 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 2:04pm

mulder wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 8:47am:

Condescending to others who advocate a different viewpoint than yours isn't helping you.

You didn't expressed a viewpoint (on the part I quote), but gave orders.

Quote:

There's plenty of free server space available for file sharing.

Most of those I know offer such service for a limited time, are unreliable, made you wait for several minutes before starting to download. Not my notion of friendly service.

Quote:

For example. a library that used to be called gaLibrary has changed to ai_ga; also, framerate changed to frameRate; dnaLength () is no longer a function; makeChromosome is not a function; etc.

frameRate is a documented change, made to improve consistency. A minor problem.
gaLibrary, dnaLength, makeChromosome are not part of Processing, but of probably some third party library. So even if older versions of Processing were available, you will still miss these (older) libraries: Processing authors can't and won't track them in any case.

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #8 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 2:34pm

PhiLho wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 2:04pm:

[quote author=536B727A7B6C1E0 link=1265900732/2#2 date=1265906854]You didn't expressed a viewpoint (on the part I quote), but gave orders.

I did express a viewpoint prior to your saying that I was giving orders to someone, so there's little to be gained by repeating it.

Quote:

There's plenty of free server space available for file sharing.

Most of those I know offer such service for a limited time, are unreliable, made you wait for several minutes before starting to download. Not my notion of friendly service.

Not all of them are that way, but many are. I suggest choosing one that doesn't have those onerous limitations. They could also just get a web hosting account with plenty of free file storage and unlimited downloads (Dreamhost is one example).

Quote:

frameRate is a documented change, made to improve consistency. A minor problem.
gaLibrary, dnaLength, makeChromosome are not part of Processing, but of probably some third party library. So even if older versions of Processing were available, you will still miss these (older) libraries: Processing authors can't and won't track them in any case.

They're probably part of the (formerly) gaLibrary, which for some reason has changed it's name. I already have that Library, so that's not a problem. The problem is in using functions or variables that work with it in Processing 1.x.

Quark

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #9 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 2:57pm

Hi Mulder

I can understand your frustration and I saw your post seeking help to translate an old example. It is such an attractive sketch that I looked into the problem. The sketch makes use of 2 contributed libraries traer physics and AI Algorithms and the problem is that the library authors have updated/improved their libraries so the old example code no longer works so as PhiLo points out even if Processing had a repository of earlier versions it would not help.

Processing is maintained by a small team of volunteers and it is difficult to keep the website info, tutorials, reference, help etc 100% up to date. The contributed libraries are mostly provided by individuals who do it for recreation, software development is an extremely time consuming process and to maintain old examples is unlikely to be a high priority.

So yes it is frustrating but Processing is still an incredible resource.

blindfish

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #10 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 3:12pm

I think this thread might have contributed to this little rant.

@Mulder-
I'd suggest you have a look through the Getting started section, and pay particular attention to "Don't start by trying to build a cathedral". This is the usual story of someone thinking they can cherry-pick some complex code from some random source, without having a basic understanding of the core concepts (as you admit yourself: "I don't know. If I don't understand the former syntax, that precludes understanding the current syntax and being able to change the old code to work."), and then get it to do what they want...

For one thing using external libraries is not something I'd necessarily recommend to a beginner: as you've discovered they're actually often far more susceptible to changes of syntax than the established core. Sure I'll admit that the change to 'frameRate' bugged me slightly, but the interpreter is pretty good at picking up syntax errors like that and pointing you in the right direction (exactly as happens when you use 'framerate'). You're not going to get that kind of hand-holding with an external library.

Quote:

So that code become useless; you can't learn from it because you can't run it.

On the contrary - once you have an understanding of the basics updating old code and getting it to run is a great way to learn.

Quote:

This has got to change. You need to provide a repository for all the older versions of Processing, and stop playing around with the syntax all the time; this only exacerbates the problem of the syntax you've already changed from prior versions to newer versions. Make up your mind and then leave it alone.

This sounds like you're making demands and stamping your feet: that's not a constructive way to ask for help...

Where is the what if the what is in why?

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #11 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 3:16pm

Quark wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 2:57pm:

Hi Mulder

I can understand your frustration and I saw your post seeking help to translate an old example. It is such an attractive sketch that I looked into the problem. The sketch makes use of 2 contributed libraries traer physics and AI Algorithms and the problem is that the library authors have updated/improved their libraries so the old example code no longer works so as PhiLo points out even if Processing had a repository of earlier versions it would not help.

Does that mean that even though I have both those libraries, there's nothing anyone can do to make it work in Processing 1.x

So yes it is frustrating but Processing is still an incredible resource.

mulder

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #12 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 3:32pm

blindfish wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 3:12pm:

I think this thread might have contributed to this little rant.

I'm not ranting at all.

@Mulder-
I'd suggest you have a look through the Getting started section, and pay particular attention to "Don't start by trying to build a cathedral". This is the usual story of someone thinking they can cherry-pick some complex code from some random source, without having a basic understanding of the core concepts (as you admit yourself: "I don't know.

I do have a very good book by Daniel Shiffman which I'm still in the process of reading. I'm not trying to cherry-pick any code; I simply want to get this example working in Processing 1.x, since I find it very interesting.

If I don't understand the former syntax, that precludes understanding the current syntax and being able to change the old code to work."), and then get it to do what they want...

For one thing using external libraries is not something I'd necessarily recommend to a beginner: as you've discovered they're actually often far more susceptible to changes of syntax than the established core. Sure I'll admit that the change to 'frameRate' bugged me slightly, but the interpreter is pretty good at picking up syntax errors like that and pointing you in the right direction (exactly as happens when you use 'framerate'). You're not going to get that kind of hand-holding with an external library.

Hopefully I wouldn't need it.

Quote:

On the contrary - once you have an understanding of the basics updating old code and getting it to run is a great way to learn.

Since I don't have that skill set yet, and other Processing programmers haven't been able to make it work, I tend to doubt whether understanding the "basics" would do any good in this particular situation.

Quote:

This has got to change. You need to provide a repository for all the older versions of Processing, and stop playing around with the syntax all the time; this only exacerbates the problem of the syntax you've already changed from prior versions to newer versions. Make up your mind and then leave it alone.

This sounds like you're making demands and stamping your feet: that's not a constructive way to ask for help...

No stamping of feet happening here. I don't think that expecting consistency is too much to ask. If you're going to improve the core, that's all fine and good, but regardless, it should only be done for a good reason. Changing a function name from lowercase to InterCaps or from All Caps to InterCaps or lowercase shouldn't be necessary if it had been carefully thought out before including such functions. Changing them later demonstrates poor planning and needlessly aggravates everyone who used the former and now has to change it to the latter.

blindfish

Re: Older Processing versions
Reply #13 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 4:11pm

mulder wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010, 3:32pm:

No stamping of feet happening here. I don't think that expecting consistency is too much to ask. If you're going to improve the core, that's all fine and good, but regardless, it should only be done for a good reason. Changing a function name from lowercase to InterCaps or from All Caps to InterCaps or lowercase shouldn't be necessary if it had been carefully thought out before including such functions. Changing them later demonstrates poor planning and needlessly aggravates everyone who used the former and now has to change it to the latter.

TBH I think you're asking an awful lot from something that you aren't paying for. Processing is a teaching tool. If from the developer's experience changing the case of a function or property makes it easier for new students to understand, they'll make those changes - it's not a particularly big effort for the rest of us to implement them. There are plenty of working examples on the site for you to learn from. If you go off searching for content in the wild wild web then you do so at your own risk...

Also by their very nature OS projects can grow organically and it's hard to predict every development that's going to take place. Perhaps once you have some real programming experience under your belt you'll be in a position to be making these criticisms, but right now I don't think you've got a leg to stand on. I've found Processing an incredibly useful learning tool and have made huge progress since I started using it and whilst there have been occasional changes these have been - in my experience at least - infrequent and relatively trivial.

Finally - you seem to have based your decision that no-one can help, and this subsequent complaint, on the fact that a day old post you made has received a single response and hasn't seen a successful resolution... Sorry but you're going to have to learn to be a bit more patient: no-one is paying us to answer your questions.

Where is the what if the what is in why?

blindfish God Member Offline Posts: 793	Re: Older Processing versions Reply #14 - Feb 11^th, 2010, 4:14pm Actually, thinking about it, you'd do well to read this.
	Where is the what if the what is in why?