[chuck-dev] initial patch for 64-bit
radarsat1 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 29 12:23:43 EDT 2008
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/8/29 Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com>
>> But I'm currently a bit confused whether the ChucK devs actually read
>> and use this list, since there is obviously work being done on ChucK
>> but I see no information about it, and no one responded to my patch.
>> If not, I'm just wondering if there's a more appropriate place to
>> discuss ChucK development or to at least submit patches.
> I agree that more communication on this level would be preferable. Another
> example is that we now have some Uanae (Flip and pilF and some more stuff)
> that I have no idea at all about what they do, how or why, I'm not sure how
> I could figure this out, short of diging in the source and reading up on
> whatever phenomenon they deal with. The examples that use them turn a sine
> into a the same sine so clearly they are relective but beyond that I don't
> get it. I pointed this out on the main list yet did not yet get a reply.
> Now, I realise that my friend Ge is a very busy man and may lack the time to
> send as many mails as he'd like. He has ChucK to maintain, students to teach
> to, workshops to give, a partner and who knows how much more. I have been
> and still am very outspoken in my respect for him and his generosity in
> sharing ChucK with us all.
> Still, it's my suspicion that if more time would be spend on open
> communication then that would make it easier to share the work (not just
> coding but also documentation, finding bugs and documenting them, answering
> questions, etc, etc, etc), thus decreasing the load on some individuals.
> Right now I am contributing a bit but I could do more (and have fun doing
> it) if we could improve comunication. I'd be happy to try my hand at fixing
> Sitar, for example, but it's not at all clear to me how Sitar should deal
> with very low notes (clearly not by outputting text warnings at sample-rate,
> which is the current behaviour). I'd also be happy to help write the manual
> but it's not at all clear to me in what form I should donate paragraphs or
> small sections.
Actually you might find that a good place to discuss the Sitar model
is on the STK mailing list, which is where it comes from.
> Perhaps this need not be said again but I'd like to stress that this is not
> meant as critisism and should merely be seen as my attempt to help think
> about how we could improve ChucK and ChucKist culture.
Thanks Kas, I want to be clear that I share the same sentiment. Sorry
if I come off being utilitarian in my communications sometimes, but I
am usually just trying to be efficient. Obviously I think ChucK is a
really cool idea and totally respect Ge for making it happen. But yes,
I would love some communication and perhaps slightly more informative
commit comments sometimes, too. ;-)
I want to avoid situations where two people end up trying to solve the
same problem, for example, stepping on each other's toes. For
example, right now I have no idea, someone at Princeton or Stanford
could already be working hard on the 64-bit problem and is totally
annoyed by my patch, but I have no way of knowing this.
I respect the idea of working on a product and simply pounding away at
it until it works well, but I think a large reason for the success for
projects like Pd is that it has fairly easy-to-understand code and
everyone *talks* a lot while working on things. Making things easy
and friendly to developers can only help a project go places faster.
I'm actually fine with the idea of Ge not wanting to work with a
larger base of developers, I'm okay with that, but the main reason I
keep persisting is that he's said himself that he is interested in
Anyways, I'll just sit tight until I get some kind of answer. ;-)
More information about the chuck-dev