>I'd like to suggest backing up a bit, attempt to (re)establish clearly <br>what the real questions are here and go from there.<br><br>I would absolutely love that, Kassen - and I would appreciate <br>if Mr. Michal Seta would do the same. In advance, I'm sorry
<br>if I ticked off some circuits in his brain without intending to. <br>Of course, my last missive to him was written with the intent<br>of putting him off. With that silly exception.....<br><br>>Writing one's own instrument inherently leads to deep questions about
<br>what we think a instrument is, what music is, perhaps even who we
<br>ourselves are, on some level.
<br><br>I think this discussion started from me because ChucK appeared<br>to me (from it's website) as a "language" whose scripts could be <br>modified on-the-fly. After a couple of days of play, it seems a great
<br>type of software tp play with sound at a fundamental level. You can <br>write your own plugins etc, but it does not qualify as a language. <br><br>A language can be ported across platforms more easily - like a <br>population across a border. Software is much heavier, like the freakin
<br>Taj Mahal someone made for hid dead wife. <br><br>(forgive the metaphors there. i'm just trying to be funny!)<br> <br>