[chuck-users] Writing to text files? Visualization?

[David Powers]

On 12/8/06, David Michael <david.michael at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/06, David Powers <cyborgk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In fact, I was trying to work on this a long time ago, but when I
> > posted something about it to the list, I got ignored at that time. So
> > I sort of gave up and moved on to other software.
>
> Was this the post on HyperArray? I liked that class alot, it showed me
> how to work around the deficiencies of array.
>
> Now that I have learned ChucK, I feel a bit more comfortable trying to
> implement it. But even HyperArray needs to have a set number of array
> items... and I have to make sure to include the class in a running
> instance of ChucK or either explicitly write the class in the file I
> want to use it in.... not exactly the most portable thing in the
> world, especially considering that there is not really another way to
> include files in classes, except on the command line.
>
> The ChucK array object in general neednt follow the array conventions
> in C, but it does.
> Having said all that, I realize that ChucK is under development and a
> phD thesis.
> I still would love to see more powerful native arrays (like Ruby's or
> JavaScript's, which I realize are probably really linked lists).
>
> ~other David

Hello, yes, that was it. I didn't know anybody paid attention, maybe I
would have kept at it. This post actually gives me a little incentive
to return to ChucK and pick up where I left off.

And I do agree with all of the above. Haven't used Ruby, but I've used
lists in Python, it's amazing how fast you can perform various
manipulations. I'm not a programmer, so my reference to C just
mentioned it, because I took a C/C++ class once, and I have some vague
familiarity. But I'm becoming more of a programmer all the time
(Unfortunately, my main programming work currently, is writing
portfolio pieces like arcade games in Flash ActionScript 2.0, which
maybe doesn't qualify me as any kind of programmer at all, but at
least it's got fairly good OOP and I'm having to write a lot of
classes and think through their relationships.)

But, as far as the missing array functionality, I think once they get
the object-oriented/class stuff sorted out, that would also solve the
problem. It just needs to be easier to extend chuck and include
classes. It would be especially great if you could automatically tell
chuck to include any classes within some specified folder, by default.
So all your basic extended functionality just shows up in any chuck
programs you run.

~David