3 ms·

Pyprocessing: Processing without Java.

50 points by vicehead 17y ago

Easier to get started and less buggier than ruby-processing and clj-processing.

sophacles 17y ago
So I like this idea, the project looks pretty cool, but the name... Wasn't it already taken by a project that jnoller forked into multiprocessing? I mean, seriously, does no one google project names anymore?
- stevejohnson 17y ago
  Given the API they are mirroring, they couldn't have named it anything else.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    They could have followed the processing.js style and named it processing.py
ggchappell 17y ago
Looks nice. Also, it might need to be pointed out that we already have Processing without Java: processing.js. http://processingjs.org/ http://processingjs.org/
- vicehead 17y ago
  Which is uselessly slow on anything other than webkit.
  - catch23 17y ago
    runs great in V8
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      Webkit + V8 = Chrome.
      - catch23 17y ago
        I assume he was talking about the javascript engine in Safari since the webkit project downloads includes the squirrelfish js engine.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    No, its workable in late model Firefox too. I do map charts with it.
kylemathews 17y ago
Processing just got more interesting...
thesnark 17y ago
What about NodeBox? http://nodebox.net http://nodebox.net
- vicehead 17y ago
  Not cross platform.
  - evgen 17y ago
    Nodebox 2 is cross-platform [http://beta.nodebox.net http://beta.nodebox.net]. Unfortunately, IMHO, they achieved this by going with Java as the base and changing the scripting engine to use Jython.
    - fdb 17y ago
      As one of the people behind NodeBox, I'd love to know why you think this is unfortunate. We have been working hard on an application that runs on Windows, Linux and Mac, and a blanket statement like "unfortunately Java" is a bit frustrating. As graphic designers we are really sensitive to awkward Java applications that look out of place on Mac or Windows. We are trying to find the right look that works on every platform. We discovered that this has more to do with an attention to detail than the underlying technology. As an example, look at a "Mac-like" application iTunes, iPhoto, iCal or Garageband: none of them use the standard aqua buttons in the main interface, instead opting for custom bitmap buttons. For us, the choices are really down to Qt or Java. We need a solid graphics layer that provides the same results on every platform. Java's 2d graphics does this, and it has native back-ends (Quartz). Also, by using Java, we can speed up a lot of the Python code without resorting to hunting memory bugs in C++. Lastly, I discovered at Pycon 2009 that Jython really has become a first-class citizen, officially supported by people like Guido. It also does away with the GIL. I knew the Java argument would come up eventually: I'm surprised it took so long. However, it doesn't come up with people using the software: our users don't realize/care that we use Jython. Instead they're just happy they can use NodeBox on Windows.
- RK 17y ago
  Shoebot looks pretty interesting. It's pure Python. http://tinkerhouse.net/shoebot/Main/HomePage http://tinkerhouse.net/shoebot/Main/HomePage
daeken 17y ago
On a related note, I was without internet for a bit and decided to write a Processing-esque library for .NET (specifically, it's Boo). I haven't touched it in a while, but someone may be interested in doing something with it: http://trac2.assembla.com/livingcanvas/browser/trunk http://trac2.assembla.com/livingcanvas/browser/trunk
middayc 17y ago
You could call it without JVM. You are not programming ordinary Processing in Java but ~in~ Processing. Why is without "Java" a feature. It makes it not run in a browser and I doubt I could speed-wise make something like this with it. It's made in ordinary processing (and it runs in a browser). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACBSRG5ywM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACBSRG5ywM I don't object the creation of processing in yet another language. I just slightly object this title.
- vicehead 17y ago
  Processing is a subset of Java. For starters, Java and thus by extension processing doesn't allow funargs and is constrained by it's verbosity. For anything other than basic Sketches, this is a huge disadvantage for something that claims to be an educational tool.
  - ewjordan 17y ago
    First, the nitpick: Processing isn't quite a subset of Java, it actually both supports full Java syntax (if a tab is named .java, it's processed as a plain old Java file) and adds a few syntax preprocessings of its own apart from wrapping everything into a Java class (one example: numbers don't have to have f at the end to be interpreted as floats). With that out of the way: it's worth noting that someone put together a Scala version of Processing, which addresses the lack of functional goodness in Java while still using the "normal" Processing library (maybe even the environment?): http://technically.us/spde/About http://technically.us/spde/About As an educational tool, you could do a lot worse than introducing people to Java, though, since if they ever plan to work, it's probably what they'll be stuck coding. And for all its limitations power-wise, I've seen far better (and far more) data visualizations come out of Processing than anywhere else (data viz is probably the #1 use case, since graphic/animation work is made very painless), so they're clearly doing something right...
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Amen. Processing gets out of your way and lets you do great viz.

50 points by vicehead 17y ago

Easier to get started and less buggier than ruby-processing and clj-processing.

So I like this idea, the project looks pretty cool, but the name... Wasn't it already taken by a project that jnoller forked into multiprocessing? I mean, seriously, does no one google project names anymore?

stevejohnson 17y ago
Given the API they are mirroring, they couldn't have named it anything else.
- sophacles 17y ago
  They could have followed the processing.js style and named it processing.py

ggchappell 17y ago

Looks nice. Also, it might need to be pointed out that we already have Processing without Java: processing.js. http://processingjs.org/ http://processingjs.org/

vicehead 17y ago
Which is uselessly slow on anything other than webkit.
- catch23 17y ago
  runs great in V8
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    Webkit + V8 = Chrome.
    - catch23 17y ago
      I assume he was talking about the javascript engine in Safari since the webkit project downloads includes the squirrelfish js engine.
- rjurney 17y ago
  No, its workable in late model Firefox too. I do map charts with it.

kylemathews 17y ago

Processing just got more interesting...

thesnark 17y ago

What about NodeBox? http://nodebox.net http://nodebox.net

vicehead 17y ago
Not cross platform.
- evgen 17y ago
  Nodebox 2 is cross-platform [http://beta.nodebox.net http://beta.nodebox.net]. Unfortunately, IMHO, they achieved this by going with Java as the base and changing the scripting engine to use Jython.
  - fdb 17y ago
    As one of the people behind NodeBox, I'd love to know why you think this is unfortunate. We have been working hard on an application that runs on Windows, Linux and Mac, and a blanket statement like "unfortunately Java" is a bit frustrating. As graphic designers we are really sensitive to awkward Java applications that look out of place on Mac or Windows. We are trying to find the right look that works on every platform. We discovered that this has more to do with an attention to detail than the underlying technology. As an example, look at a "Mac-like" application iTunes, iPhoto, iCal or Garageband: none of them use the standard aqua buttons in the main interface, instead opting for custom bitmap buttons. For us, the choices are really down to Qt or Java. We need a solid graphics layer that provides the same results on every platform. Java's 2d graphics does this, and it has native back-ends (Quartz). Also, by using Java, we can speed up a lot of the Python code without resorting to hunting memory bugs in C++. Lastly, I discovered at Pycon 2009 that Jython really has become a first-class citizen, officially supported by people like Guido. It also does away with the GIL. I knew the Java argument would come up eventually: I'm surprised it took so long. However, it doesn't come up with people using the software: our users don't realize/care that we use Jython. Instead they're just happy they can use NodeBox on Windows.
RK 17y ago
Shoebot looks pretty interesting. It's pure Python. http://tinkerhouse.net/shoebot/Main/HomePage http://tinkerhouse.net/shoebot/Main/HomePage

daeken 17y ago

On a related note, I was without internet for a bit and decided to write a Processing-esque library for .NET (specifically, it's Boo). I haven't touched it in a while, but someone may be interested in doing something with it: http://trac2.assembla.com/livingcanvas/browser/trunk http://trac2.assembla.com/livingcanvas/browser/trunk

middayc 17y ago

You could call it without JVM. You are not programming ordinary Processing in Java but ~in~ Processing. Why is without "Java" a feature. It makes it not run in a browser and I doubt I could speed-wise make something like this with it. It's made in ordinary processing (and it runs in a browser). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACBSRG5ywM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACBSRG5ywM I don't object the creation of processing in yet another language. I just slightly object this title.

vicehead 17y ago
Processing is a subset of Java. For starters, Java and thus by extension processing doesn't allow funargs and is constrained by it's verbosity. For anything other than basic Sketches, this is a huge disadvantage for something that claims to be an educational tool.
- ewjordan 17y ago
  First, the nitpick: Processing isn't quite a subset of Java, it actually both supports full Java syntax (if a tab is named .java, it's processed as a plain old Java file) and adds a few syntax preprocessings of its own apart from wrapping everything into a Java class (one example: numbers don't have to have f at the end to be interpreted as floats). With that out of the way: it's worth noting that someone put together a Scala version of Processing, which addresses the lack of functional goodness in Java while still using the "normal" Processing library (maybe even the environment?): http://technically.us/spde/About http://technically.us/spde/About As an educational tool, you could do a lot worse than introducing people to Java, though, since if they ever plan to work, it's probably what they'll be stuck coding. And for all its limitations power-wise, I've seen far better (and far more) data visualizations come out of Processing than anywhere else (data viz is probably the #1 use case, since graphic/animation work is made very painless), so they're clearly doing something right...
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Amen. Processing gets out of your way and lets you do great viz.