Kassen wrote:
I just wanted to bump this and offer my small and humble opinion;
To me it's a sort of utopia to have this amount of open-ness about the process of ChucK's development. It's therefore quite odd to me that there isn't more debate on the sugested features and that only a very small group of people has added desirered features and there is hardly any discussion at all about which ideas are good and which ones are silly/redundant/dangerous.
Why isn't there more debate?
I haven't spent a lot of time with ChucK yet, so I don't have a lot of ideas myself. Since ChucK is intended for music programming on the fly, I'd expect the real "user base" to be working computational musicians that are jamming with ChucK, not dry "language theorists", etc. As I understand it, ChucK programming is a performing art, and like the other performing arts, the real feedback that matters is that between the performer and the audience. I haven't been through the documents recently, but coming from a non-real-time performance background, my own impressions of ChucK probably don't mean much. But for "people like me" (studio musicians rather than live performers), what I would want from ChucK would be documentation, tools, and even some encouragement that would help me transition *out* of "studio mode" and into a live performance mode of some kind. I couldn't make this year's course on live performance, but it's certainly on my list for next year. And, of course, there's "Dorkbot" :) (http://groups.google.com/group/dorkbotpdx-blabber).