[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 

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.


More information about the chuck-users mailing list