Rename code to node

[aomarks]

No description provided.

[PaulKinlan]

What was the rational for this?

[aomarks]

What was the rational for this?

I defer to @dglazkov + @seefeldb who I think made this decision (I didn't actually find the conversation yet, somewhere in Discord!). But, personally it seemed like a good idea to me. I think the recipe vs board distinction was kind of fuzzy, and it seems simpler to say "you make boards using the board function", without introducing another term.

[PaulKinlan]

right - I couldn't find the conversation either... I'm 100% on-board (heh) with board change. I'm not sure what node even means in this context, code made a lot more sense imo.

[aomarks]

right - I couldn't find the conversation either... I'm 100% on-board (heh) with board change. I'm not sure what node even means in this context, code made a lot more sense imo.

Oh! Sorry, I thought this was about the recipe -> board change, my bad mixing up issues. Yes, I feel less convinced about the code -> node change, I also wanted to hear more before I made the change. I share a gut reaction that code is more intuitive, since it's the kind of node that runs code; not any kind of node.

[dglazkov]

code made a lot more sense imo.

tell me more. My intuition was that code produces a node factory, a literally "make a node" function.

[dglazkov]

Also, let's leave code as is for M4?

[dglazkov]

another way I think of it: "if I had code function now, I would build some of the nodes in existing kits just as code.

Ah, I guess the difference in our perceptions:

• "it allows me to add code to my board"

• "it allows me to add custom nodes to my board"

[PaulKinlan]

Right - it's more of the former. I certainly don't think of it in the sense of parts of kits in the reusable sense, I often default back to "I need to do something custom that is not worth making a kit for.. - code as kits is an interesting concept.