MOTM

In a message dated 7/2/2003 10:20:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
lesmizz@... writes:

> What's wrong with the computer flow-chart like "block diagrams" that's used
> in the original Arp 2600 manual?

Talk about serendipity! My ARP 2600 manual post had nothing to do with this 
thread.

Anyway, Peter Grenader (are you still on the MOTM list Peter?) posted this to 
sdiy yesterday (see below). I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here. I 
thought it was a real good point and I wanted to credit him for it. I've mentioned 
in the past I gave up documenting patches a long time ago. I've found that 
most of a patch is not very interesting, while the small novel part of a patch I 
usually will live with for several days to get used to it and have it become 
part of my modular "vocabulary."

John B.

In a message dated 7/1/2003 4:47:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
pgrenader@... writes:

> Another thing to keep in mind --> what part of the patch is absolutely
> required in order to document it.  For instance, the sonic path may be real
> important - but do you HAVE to jot down whether it's a sequencer or
> arpeggiator controlling the freq of the VCO?  Probably not.
> 
> I've found that limiting documentation to the 'criitical path', it saves a
> lot of time and hassle.