[chuck-users] polyphony (what happens after note off)? was: Killing thread from without
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 17:47:59 EDT 2009
> If you want to automate that, then the Ugen must be able to generate a
> signal to do the disconnect. The future scheduling is just a workaround in
> the absence of that.
While I can see your perspective I think UGens mainly generate units
and don't do much else and that that's nice because it's clear. I
could imagine optimising the STKInstruments so they act as though they
were set to .op(0) after the .noteOff() decay ran out but that0s a
optimisation issue and not a ChucK syntax issue.
> It seems Chuck avoids C++ "automatic elements", in favor of returning
> references. This is what is causing the cleanup problem, because when the
> function has finished, there is no way to tell which references are used and
> which are not. One way to do that is to trace or references from the
> function stack and global objects. This way, the unusued elements can be
Yes, I think we'll get a method based on reference counting.
> The both use the Mach kernel, I think (at least Mac OS X does), which uses
> preemptive multitasking. Mac OS X may still have support for cooperative
> multitasking, where each program must release time to the others - I have a
> vague memory that may be better for time-critical situations, though a chore
> from the programming point of view.
Yes, the concerns are quite different; there are good reasons why
business users aren't very interested in investing in the Linux RT
kernel variants either. (or so I hear, most of those reasons are way
beyond me but that's fine as I don't design OS's)
>> In short that means that ChucK shred timing should be completely
>> deterministic and extremely precise and when it's not that's a bug, it
>> also means that for chucking multi-core cpu's won't do you much good.
> Aha, so you may get a timing problem, there.
Well, the ChucK VM runs as a single thread. As long as that thread
gets enough CPU to do it's calculations by the time it needs to a turn
in a buffer worth of samples we should be fine, timing wise. For
better or worse we are fairly independent from the rest of the OS and
from the hardware, at least as long as the cpu (or the core assigned
to us) holds. Distributing something like ChucK over multiple CPU's is
> A VM though usually means an overhead.
Yes. However, for us here that's worthwhile as we have a VM that
shares memory space with the parser and compiler. This should
-hopefully- lead to the ability to update running code in ways that
plain compiled languages aren't able to do. With some trickery with
public classes we can already do some of that.
There has been some speculation about stand-alone compiled ChucK
programs, there is no reason why we couldn't have those in the future
but personally I'm still more interested in more interaction with the
> Yes, thank you. That timing aspect of threads (or shreds) is important.
Yes. It's quite essential. IMHO Ge's thesis is one of the best
resources we have for understanding the how and why of ChucK's
architecture in detail (there actually is a method to the madness, you
see...). It's one of the more interesting aspects to chucking and you
seem to have run into it quite early on. Maybe we should archive the
last few days worth of posts labeled as "how to jump in at the deep
I think we covered nearly all of it now.
More information about the chuck-users