Hey everyone
I've been working on a fairly elaborate sequencer patch in Puredata Vanilla version 0.52. I'm using just vanilla objects which have all been available in Puredata for some time.

I noticed when I open this patch in "Purr Data" or in older versions of Vanilla Puredata, (like 0.49), all the objects load correctly, but a lot of the patching is wrong. Specifically in sub-patches, the patching is just...... all over the place with cords going everywhere and not at all how it was patched when I made things.

I'm interested in making sequencers in Puredata that can be used on platforms like Bela or the Organelle. Those types of things usually use older versions of Pd. I expected that, because .pd files are human readable text files, there would be backwards compatibility, but I guess this was a faulty assumption?

I'm curious:
Is Vanilla Puredata generally not backwards compatible with older versions? Or is this a bug? Is there any easy way I could correct the patching in my patch so that it'll open in older versions of Puredata without having to re-patch everything? Or should I just stick to older versions of Puredata for this type of work going forward?

thanks

@Mortfell I can imagine, that if you make patches with a new version only with objects and functionality from an old version, then it should also run with the old version. Similar thing with Purr Data: If you only use stuff that is also available in vanilla it should run with vanilla.

Puckette pays a lot of attention to backward compatibility. People report trying out patches made over ten years ago to still be functional with current versions of Pd. If you made something with Purr Data, as @Jona said, don't expect it to run smoothly on vanilla. Perhaps in Purr Data you used some external object that has the same name with a native vanilla object, still with a different number of inlets and outlets, and when you open the same patch in vanilla you get the native version, so patching is messed up. Or for some reason, the indexing of objects inside subpatches gets messed up and then the whole wiring is screwed too.

Yes, that's what I expected. And why I'm confused.

@alexandros Oh ok yes, good to know.
But I did not make the patch in Purr Data.
I made this patch in Puredata 0.52, (where it works correctly)

And tried opening it in both Puredata 0.49 and Purr Data, in both the patching gets messed up. Here is a picture of what I mean

Patch working correctly in 0.52

Patch loading strangely in 0.49

@alexandros thinking of this makes me realize, like you say:
if one things loads wrong or doesn't have the correct number of outlets and inlets that could cause a problem in loading the rest of the patch or subpatch, I'll check the error messages.

Edit:
Checking the messages I see there is a line in red:
canvas: no method for 'listbox'
Followed by messages relating too failed connections.

@Mortfell you can try to replace listbox with this: https://forum.pdpatchrepo.info/topic/12960/a-drop-down-listbox-using-hsliders

Yes, listbox is definitively the culprit, and, unlike other not created objects, this one not only isn't recognised, but also doesn't increment the internal pd-object-related indexes, and then the connect messages don't refer anymore to the correct boxes.
Anyway, backwards compatibility means you can execute with 0.52 an older patch (created with an earlier version), but not the opposite (forward compatibility )

@jyg forward compatibility is good

Ah yes, sorry you are right
I am talking about forward compatibility not backwards compatibility
But in any case, this should be possible I guess if I can fix this issue.

What is "listbox" ?
I'm not using an object called listbox anywhere...
is listbox related to the "list" object?

I can see if I open up my Puredata patch as a text file and search, there are multiple references to "listbox" but I'm not aware of what it is.....

@Mortfell yes you certainly created a list atom (Put menu, List item, or ctrl + 4 in pd 0.52)
something like this :

@jyg ohhhhhh ok thank you very much
Of course ya ya
I had no idea that was a newish addition to the application, should be easy to fix

@Mortfell What was the solution to this? I am having issues with the exact same error when transferring to an older version.