[chuck-users] a few language questions
Juan-Pablo Caceres
jcaceres at ccrma.stanford.edu
Thu Nov 15 12:41:38 EST 2007
Robin Davies wrote:
> .... Although .net manages to get by without resizable arrays. Not that I think that's a good idea; but, as language features go, it's a luxury, not a requirement, as .net demonstrates.
>
>
This is an interesting point. I don't agree with the word "luxury"
though because we could use the same argument to get to an extreme and
say that everything beyond Assembly is luxury ;)
However, it is true that sometimes too many features may not be desired,
if adding these features damages something else... If we get the array
but can at the same time not use them and everything stays the same, why
not?
I am not an expert on how new features can change important language
"core" parts, but for example the fact that SC3 separates sclang and
scsynth, brings the side effect that you cannot program the dsp part
(the synthDefs) algorithmically. Instead you have to deal with the buses
and nodes hack. This is IMHO not desirable. Some people call this
separation "a cleaner design" but I prefer the complete integration that
chuck has.
JPa.
More information about the chuck-users
mailing list