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

Craig Latta craig at netjam.org
Thu Feb 12 14:45:26 EST 2009


      Kas writes:

 > ...some things follow from Ruby being interpreted and ChucK being
 > compiled.

      Mike responds:

 > I would put it this way: Some things follow from Ruby being reflexive
 > and everything in Ruby being an object.  I think that it matters a lot
 > less that it's compiled.  After all, we're compiling to byte code that
 > runs in a VM, correct?  It's not native code that its running.

      Right, and of course there are other systems which go further, 
translating those virtual-machine instructions into hardware processor 
instructions. Some of those do absolutely everything at runtime (no 
edit/run/restart cycle), and some of *those* (my own favorite is Squeak) 
can do music and garbage collection at the same time without missing 

      The thing that matters to me is the immediacy I get from dynamism. 
I don't ever want to have to stop the processes that make my music. 
ChucK comes close to that feeling, by making the edit/spork cycle very 
quick, but to propagate the effects of code changes I still have to kill 
shreds I would rather leave running during a performance. (Apologies if 
the situation has changed, I haven't actively used ChucK for my own work 
in several months. And apologies if I'm rehashing stuff everyone already 
knows. :)

      Anyway, "interpreted" and "compiled" are not mutually exclusive. 
The dichotomy one is really talking about here is "dynamic" versus 
"static", and both can yield usable performance.


Craig Latta
composer and token Smalltalk hacker :)

More information about the chuck-users mailing list