I believe that extending and improving the language will surely help
here though:
Specifically, when users can create their own UGens, I imagine you'll
see quite a few new instruments being developed. Of course, it would
be good to make sure the UGen API is standardized, so that UGen
developers can create their instruments in a manner consistent with
what already exists in ChucK, and currently existing anomalies could
be eradicated as a part of that process.
Oh and there are a lot of programmers who aren't academics. Extending
the language itself should be of interest to everyone who programs
with ChucK (and remember: even if you don't need a feature now, you
might need it in the future, as your understanding of the language
grows!)
~David
On 8/22/07, chris beck
I would disagree with that reasoning. Sure it's produced by academics, but this is the USERS list. And it is fundamentally a practical tool, not an academic exercise as you suggest. The fact that we are discussing it on this list means that usability is a serious concern.
Although I might not disagree with the conclusion, the language itself certainly can and should be improved. I would say that standardizing the Ugen / Instrument interfaces should be high on this list.
-- Chris