I heard of Processing through Daniel Shiffman’s videos, and while I do not use it personally, I feel the it is a great tool for teaching and creative coding. I would love to contribute to the development of Processing.
The first thing that I would like to contribute is a better naming scheme for new sketches. I personally feel that the way new sketches are named is horribly boring and difficult to read.
The p5.js web editor uses the Glitch friendly word list to generate random, fun names for new sketches. I have replicated the behaviour in the Processing IDE.
Now, how do I get it accepted into the main branch? Should I just submit a PR? I did read the Contributing Guidelines, but that was not of much help.
I see what you’re saying, but on the other hand Processing sketches are named after today’s date. I’m sure at least a few folks find this naming convention more useful than randomly-generated names. I also wouldn’t be surprised if certain tools and libraries depended on this naming convention.
Not saying you shouldn’t contribute your change, but I think you’d probably want to make it a setting that people could choose.
Hi @KartikSoneji – have you opened an issue on the Processing github repo proposing that you work on a PR? This sounds like something that would be up to benfry – you might get good feedback, and you might also be suggested to move it to a PR on Processing4 instead of 3.
I think as an option it sounds like a great idea. Currently:
Right now, I have the naming as: IridescentTurnip. If you enable the “Use Old naming scheme for new Sketches” setting in Preferences, it defaults to sketch_200520b. Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
Sounds like a good idea but you should name the switch for friendly and not-friendly names differently because especially new users won’t know what is meant by “old naming scheme”.
Maybe name it “Use alphanumeric scheme for new sketches”.
To be honest, I only recently found out that the numbers at the end of sketch names are NOT random numbers. Personally, I find it quite difficult to parse the numbers as a date, especially as it is in an unusual format (yymmdd as opposed to the ISO yyyymmdd).
But I do see your point. I have updated the issue.