Re: [chuck-users] chuck vs supercollider?

I really like how you can program tight sequencers that never fall out of sync in an easy an clean way. E.g. you can spork two different shreds that each contain a loop where they wait once for 100::ms. Even though they don't necessarily know anything about each other, they will always say tightly synchronized, beating once every 100 milliseconds. I'm sure you can accomplish this in other languages as well, but it's so easy and easily read in ChucK. /Stefan On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:11 AM, David Ogborn wrote:

Great answer - I'm going to save it and quote it whenever needed! :)

Yours truly, David

On 2012-08-09, at 10:03 PM, Kassen wrote:

Hey Ronni,

Hi, i was wondering, is there any benefit in chuck approach having

one sample block size comparing with supercollider ?

Yes, there is, we're not totally silly :-)

Not using block processing has two big advantages for us. The biggest one is that that way you can use a feedback loop over a series of UGens and not have the block-size added as a delay to the loop. This becomes quite important in things like feedback in FM modulation for noise, physical modelling, tuned delays, etc, etc.

The other is that we can easily modulate UGens with a precision down to the sample. Theoretically you could do that with block processing as well, but then it becomes a lot more complicated.

are there things that can be done with chuck that cannot be done with sc3?

To be honest; not really. All of this can be done in SC as well by creating a new UGens plugin for SC. All of the things SC can do we can do too... but of course some things will be easier, even much easier in one of the two. A good example of what ChucK is good at is this kind of thing; doing DSP in the language itself using feedback over UGens or by writing a function that does the processing and makes a "Step" UGen output those values as a audio stream. Other timing-related things ChucK also tends to be strong at, for example execution order is always deterministic and nearly always very obviously clear, even with parallel processes. The integration of the analysis/resynthesis stuff with the timing thing seems unique to me, not sure how SC handles that in the details. I think it is nice how ChucK abstracts stuff like HID interfaces in the same way across OS's, I don't think SC does that (yet). There are other cases, I'm sure, you get the picture.

Generally, unless you really need some specific feature in either, I'd say you should pick the one that has a syntax that makes you feel at home, everything else is just icing. SC's larger library of UGens or ChucK's timing accuracy will be little consolation if you end up not happy coding in it. If you're not sure which one I suggest that you spend a weekend with both. Expressive code makes for expressive music*.

Yours, Kas.

*not a actual scientific proven fact (yet?). _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. David Ogborn, Communication Studies & Multimedia, McMaster University Director, Cybernetic Orchestra & ESP Studio

http://soundcloud.com/cyberneticorchestra http://esp.mcmaster.ca http://davidogborn.net http://twitter.com/ogbornd 1-905-525-9140 ext 27603

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

-- Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!