> One factual note; functions have their own name-space as well.
OK. I am already missing the package / module concept however.
I'm not sure what those are or why we need them, could you kindly explain?
> One opinion; I completely fail to see what's wrong with
> "miniaudicle" as a name.
Well, there's no such thing as an "audicle" so tacking on the prefix
"mini" makes it less than informative as to what it might actually
be.
At this stage I suspect I need to point something out to you;
http://audicle.cs.princeton.edu/There in fact is a "Audicle" but it can be quite heavy on the CPU and GPU, the MiniAudicle is a smaller version with the most important elements yet a far smaller footprint resource-wise. This makes a lot of sense, IMHO.
That said I also hate the name "ChucK", especially with that
spelling, but thought it impolite to mention that as well. ;-)
One has to admit that Supercollider is a very cool name!
SuperCollider has a very cool name, I admit. Future writers might engage in long articles interperting the act of chucking something in comparision to the effect of it colliding against something else *ducks*.
If all else fails you can re-name the executable.
;¬)
Yes, I saw some code for that somewhere. Though it's nice to have a
workaround, it does make what should be trivial into something less
than trivial.
Yes, that's true. We definately need garbage collection but in practice I don't think too many people are stuck now without it because in most cases it's not a issue at all.
If you are writing code for a instalation it could become a very real matter but at that point whatever you write will need to be double-checked so many times that working around garbage will mostly be a relatively minor adition to this work-load.
Kas.