[chuck-users] ChubbY (ChucK in Ruby)?

[mike clemow]

> And this is a case where the put-it-on-line strategy worked.  Thanks to
> Martin
> Robinson, ask and ye shall receive:
>
>  https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/2007-March/001619.html

Looks like it's not there anymore.  That link links to a download of
the first version, which is no longer there. :(  But I also think
you've updated your code to work with a newer release since he
released the PD version.

> ...  Wouldn't it be snazzy to be able to add chuck
> to any application/environment you want to compile by writing a few
> 'wrapper' functions to run the VM, parse scripts, etc.?  And then just add a
> chuck.dylib or chuck.so to the linking?  Building chuck into ruby or pd or
> lisp or lua or whatever would be so easy!

I totally agree.  I think that ChucK could aim this direction, but
probably is stand-alone partially due to its being Ge's thesis, which
had to work-at-all before it was all-powerful-and-universal.

> And for the record, I really dislike the OSC model for gluing apps together.

That's all well and good, but with ChucK (up until the recent,
extremely limited FileIO object) you're options have been limited to
MIDI, OSC, or NetIn for any sort of inter-process communication.  OSC
for IPC is kludgy, but I even think that you yourself expressed that
Chuck is ideal for prototyping.  Getting two programs to speak to each
other in OSC in order to demonstrate an idea is attractively
simple--even if it isn't robust, scalable, or safe.

OSC: The duct-tape of network protocols.

;-)

-Mike


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Brad Garton <garton at columbia.edu> wrote:
> One more thing about all this -- I really wish that music-synth languages
> would evolve in a fashion that they could be built as loadable or linkable
> libs instead of constantly thinking they need to stand alone in the world.
>  We've worked toward this in the design of RTcmix (to the point where you
> can basically instantiate an RTcmix object and various methods then run the
> features of the language), but there are still some global var issues (chuck
> is similar in this respect).  Wouldn't it be snazzy to be able to add chuck
> to any application/environment you want to compile by writing a few
> 'wrapper' functions to run the VM, parse scripts, etc.?  And then just add a
> chuck.dylib or chuck.so to the linking?  Building chuck into ruby or pd or
> lisp or lua or whatever would be so easy!
>
> And for the record, I really dislike the OSC model for gluing apps together.
>
> brad
> http://music.columbia.edu/~brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>



-- 
http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org