Chuck is really good on the musical side. Java is very strong on all the other things, mostly asynchronous control stuff. I´m currently working on a project. I programmed a drum machine in Java to test my drum machine concept. Offline rendering works like a charm and is very fast. But during realtime playback sometimes when the garbage collector chimes in there is a tiny crackle in the sound. And the latency is rather high. So I decided to use ChucK. I want to use OSC and MIDI to control things via Java and a dedicated hardware control panel in conjunction with my Bachelor Thesis. I don´t think we need basically functionality in ChucK that are featuread "in almost any language we know" like it has been said. We can do those things in a language of our choice and use a transmission protocol for communication. I think at least at the stage where ChucK is now improving the protocol support (e.g. supporting OSC packages) and adding things that already have been pre-planned (e.g. "private") makes more sense. At least from my point of view it would be very much work to get all those well known features into ChucK. IMO things should be kept simple, then it´s easier to keep things predictable. Am 05.09.2010 um 19:46 schrieb Hans Aberg:
So what setup do you have in your mind? If one uses Java and ChucK side by side, or C++ and nothing else, aren't one going to miss the musical features of ChuCK when working in those other languages?
On 5 Sep 2010, at 18:25, Bastian Schumacher wrote:
For the "ChucK lacks features that Java has" part one can use Java & ChucK side by side. Or just use C++ and nothing else. Or write your own (and don´t forget to include all those features you requested - even if they require years of full time work by large development teams)
[...]
Basti
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users