>    This licence thing is a very tuff subject, indeed! I wish the world were
>    easier!!

I think it actually makes it as easy as it will get. Licences give you
extra options. Sure; options under certain conditions, but they are
options that would not otherwise be there.

indeed.
 

>    ----- A*bit of OT*-----*

Yeah, sorry for talking about SC here.
 
>    I must say your point of view of Supercollider is completed*mistaken.
>    Its not cause most of the code you find is ugly, that the language is
>    ugly.
>    Actually from all the languages you were able to link in your email,
>    SuperCollider is probably the one that lets you do the most beautiful
>    code, its all about how capable you're.

Sorry, you lost me for a moment. Did I say that? SC took a bit of a
"kitchen-sink" approach to syntax; giving many options for many
things. That -I am sure- is really cool if you'd like to write
"poetry" in it,

yeah my goal is always to write beautiful poems. and am sure if you're a coder that is able to write readable code, supercollider will allow you more than one way to do that. bad for beginners, great for coders.

I remember when i started chuck everything simply work - i was very impressed - everything was super accurate, was the oposite of my beginning with supercollider where i barely new if i was dealing with BEATS / MINUTES / SECS.

But after a few weeks ( ok, not a few, some weeks ) i got my head around it, and now i know how to do accurate and not accurate clocking :P
 
I also gather it can be confusing if you are a novice
and would like to find the common ground between 5 examples by

yeah that sucks big time, the documentation weren't very friendly until few versions ago.

Supercollider learning curve is definitely bigger ( way bigger ) than chuck, in the other hand there's way more documentation to be read and way more code to be used.
 
different authors. It does take a lot more from functional programming
which I agree often leads to beautiful code. Then again I find a
certain beauty in ChucK's tendency to be straightforward and sometimes
a bit blunt too.

I really love chuck, and i think the way it makes possible to create and re-chain channel strips is a must! super sexy! loads of claps for chuck!

The only problem for me was when i started creating my classes and dealing with events i started having some limitations which lead me to come back to supercollider, where classes, inheritance and other syntax things gives my extremely OO ideas a better housing.

Also the extensions in SC ( Quarks ) make it very easy to share code, maybe we should look on making something for chuck. 

Something like "brew for chuck" ? Am sure a quick solution can be written using node.js + GIT
 
You can get ugly or beautiful in any language. I swear I even saw
readable Perl once ;-)

Don't get me wrong, am with you ( completely with you )

And I think chuck is super sexy and i would love to keep chucking.

I would love to help on improving the syntax and OO, and all that jazz. But unfortunately i had to prioritise my idea over digging chuck source code.

Hopefully at some point i'll be able to convert my SC classes to chuck ( :

peace