Craig;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">and some of *those* (my own favorite is Squeak) can do music and garbage collection at the same time without missing deadlines.<br>


</blockquote><div><br>Ah, yes, Squeak! I remember that, and your &quot;Quoth&quot;, the text-adventure livecoding system. Could I encourage you by saying I&#39;m still very interested in that? <br>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

<br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; The thing that matters to me is the immediacy I get from dynamism. I don&#39;t ever want to have to stop the processes that make my music. ChucK comes close to that feeling, by making the edit/spork cycle very quick, but to propagate the effects of code changes I still have to kill shreds I would rather leave running during a performance. (Apologies if the situation has changed, I haven&#39;t actively used ChucK for my own work in several months. And apologies if I&#39;m rehashing stuff everyone already knows. :)<br>


<br></blockquote></div><br>No, that situation has remained basically the same. I agree with your perspective here; Whatever we decide to do (if anything) should make musical sense. The current temporary implementation of unchangeable public classes isn&#39;t very very powerful compared to some other languages -and that&#39;s a issue- but it also isn&#39;t very conductive to live performance and improvisation which I feel is another issue and one that should ideally be addressed by a solution to all of this.<br>
<br>Yours,<br>Kas.<br>