[chuck-users] ChucK article(s)
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 07:05:16 EDT 2007
On 9/3/07, robin.escalation <robin.escalation at acm.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what those are or why we need them, could you kindly
> > explain?
> I'll explain using Python, which I am the most familiar with. Each
> file of code is a module, which can contain an arbitrary number of
> functions or classes. Each of these has their own addressable
> namespace, but the key thing is that the module itself has its own
> namespace too.
Ok, got it.
> As I understand it, in ChucK there is nothing similar to an import.
> Files do not have explicit namespaces, though one is created if a
> file is sporked as a shred. But this is not addressable, it merely
> keeps private data in each process from colliding. A further
> limitation is there can be only one public class in a file.
Yes, you are right. As you might've seen in the list archives; we just went
trough a process where everybody could list his/her wishes and sugestions
for chucK and a import/inclusion process turned out to be very high on that
Likely this will (have to?) bring a more sophisiticated namespace method
with it. In my own experience the current method covers the needs of chucK.
Another matter is that in the past far more people ran into a desire to have
seperate elements share their namespace then that ran into the desire for
more seperation. Perhaps this will change as imports/inclusions make it
easier and more inviting to start larger projects.
> Oh yes, I know about the audicle and have tried it. Someday this
> might rule the world. But it's still not a word. :-)
Ah, sorry, for a moment I thought you were unaware of the Audicle.
Personally I like how it's named; it's a new thing, arguably it's a
completely new *sort* of thing so it has a new name. The same hold true for
"Cubase" isn't a word either yet that doesn't seem to cause any confusion or
loss of sales either compared to "Logic", "Sonar" or "Live" which are words.
> 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*.
> This would be good fun and is not totally a joke. As a poet I would
> argue that how we name things and what language we choose to describe
> them affects how we work with them in an intimate way.
Yeah, absolutely. SC-fanatics will likely interpert the analogies with a
different emphasis, could be a fun debate :¬)
One of the reasons I like ChucK is that the expressive use of the
> language, especially the chuck operator, makes good sense to me for
> the domain of audio operations.
Same here. After a long time of thinking like "sending this there, then
making foo go to bar and seeing what happens" the "ChucK" name might well
become more apealing to you. I mean; we realy are sending stuff in
directions, sometimes like a ninja throwing stars, at others more like a
drunk garbage-man. Perhaps ChucK will once get so mature and stable that
"chucking" no longer seems like a apropriate analogy, perhaps at that stage
we will have to considder a different name that expresses a more precise and
controlled sort of throwing.
Perhaps "ParticleAccelerator" ;¬).
P.S. joking aside I think SC is great and so are my SC-using friends, I
believe we can learn a lot from them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users