[chuck-users] ChucK article(s)
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 21:23:21 EDT 2007
On 9/3/07, robin.escalation <robin.escalation at acm.org> wrote:
> > One factual note; functions have their own name-space as well.
> OK. I am already missing the package / module concept however.
I'm not sure what those are or why we need them, could you kindly explain?
> One opinion; I completely fail to see what's wrong with
> > "miniaudicle" as a name.
> Well, there's no such thing as an "audicle" so tacking on the prefix
> "mini" makes it less than informative as to what it might actually
At this stage I suspect I need to point something out to you;
There in fact is a "Audicle" but it can be quite heavy on the CPU and GPU,
the MiniAudicle is a smaller version with the most important elements yet a
far smaller footprint resource-wise. This makes a lot of sense, IMHO.
That said I also hate the name "ChucK", especially with that
> spelling, but thought it impolite to mention that as well. ;-)
> One has to admit that Supercollider is a very cool name!
SuperCollider has a very cool name, I admit. Future writers might engage in
long articles interperting the act of chucking something in comparision to
the effect of it colliding against something else *ducks*.
If all else fails you can re-name the executable.
> Yes, I saw some code for that somewhere. Though it's nice to have a
> workaround, it does make what should be trivial into something less
> than trivial.
Yes, that's true. We definately need garbage collection but in practice I
don't think too many people are stuck now without it because in most cases
it's not a issue at all.
If you are writing code for a instalation it could become a very real matter
but at that point whatever you write will need to be double-checked so many
times that working around garbage will mostly be a relatively minor adition
to this work-load.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users