[chuck-users] how is this "on the fly"?

[Kassen]

On 9/18/07, AlgoMantra <algomantra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would absolutely love that, Kassen - and I would appreciate
> if Mr. Michal Seta would do the same. In advance, I'm sorry
> if I ticked off some circuits in his brain without intending to.
> Of course, my last missive to him was written with the intent
> of putting him off. With that silly exception.....



Very well. Out of pure curiosity I too Googled for Michal Setta (partially
because I recognised the name but couldn't remember from where) and the
results I got would indicate that Michal too has a strong interest in
programming audio and discussing that so I have high hopes all will be well
now.

Let's just pretend, if that's possible for all involved, we didn't have this
side-track.



> I think this discussion started from me because ChucK appeared
> to me (from it's website) as a "language" whose scripts could be
> modified on-the-fly. After a couple of days of play, it seems a great
> type of software tp play with sound at a fundamental level. You can
> write your own plugins etc, but it does not qualify as a language.
>
> A language can be ported across platforms more easily - like a
> population across a border. Software is much heavier, like the freakin
> Taj Mahal someone made for hid dead wife.


Well, to me it's a language, for one thing I feel like I can express myself
in it which is a good property for a language to have. It's also somewhat
portable; you can take your ChucK code from Mac to Linux to Windows and it
should work. You can't take it on a mobile-phone, at least not yet that I
know off. As a instrument it's more portable then a grand piano but not as
portable as a flute. Unlike with some other software I believe the ChucK
developers would applaud and try to help anyone who would like to make ChucK
more portable. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are aiming at here but I
don't see how much more portability then having the source and a GPL license
you can expect to have at this point in ChucK's development.

As for OTF modifications; I already wrote all I really have to say about
that at this stage in my first reply to this discussion. There is room for
growth there, you are right, but I'm sure there are big questions about the
interface to this and I'm willing to bet there are huge questions about
practical implementations. Nobody ever claimed ChucK was mature or that it
would effortlessly let you save the world within a week.


Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20070918/da64f7e4/attachment-0001.htm