Opening the Valve on Pure-Data: Usage Patterns and Programming Practices of a Data-Flow Based Visual Programming Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pure Data (PD), a data-flow based visual programming language utilized for music and sound synthesis, remains underexplored in software engineering research. Existing literature fails to address the nuanced programming practices within PD, prompting the need to investigate how end-users manipulate nodes and edges in this visual language. This paper systematically extracts and analyzes 6,534 publicly available PD projects from GitHub. Employing source code parsing, pattern matching, and statistical analysis, we unveil usage patterns of PD by the end-user programmers. We found that most revisions of the PD files are small and simple, with fewer than 64 nodes, 51 connections, and 3 revisions. Most PD projects have less than 17 PD files, 31 commits, and only 1 author working on the PD files. The median differences in the number of nodes and edges between each commit and its parents, modifying the same file, are 3 and 0, respectively, implying small changes across various revisions of a PD file. Our findings contribute a valuable dataset for future studies, addressing the dearth of research in PD. By unraveling usage patterns, we provide insights that empower scholars and practitioners to optimize the programming experience for end-users in the realm of visual programming languages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".