[chuck-users] introduce myself
hems.inlet at gmail.com
Mon May 21 01:07:53 EDT 2012
What i found so far is that Chuck is giving me pleasant results earlier, it
has a limited set of stuff ( compared to SuperCollider ) In my personal
case, the result was spending more time composing and playing than
"understanding the possibilities".
With SC is i felt was easier to get lost ( doing something probably
unrelated but very interesting ) before start actually composing something.
But that might be just the wrong example, and am not a good reference for
About the way the timing happens on Chuck i do agree its very clear and fun
and straight forward! Really impressive!
Correct if am wrong, but AFAIK SuperCollider can also work in a similar way
( if not identical ) to chuck "time iteration" by using a "wait" message.
On 20 May 2012 21:55, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 10:29:07PM +0200, Tomtom wrote:
> > Hello Carlo
> > I haven't tried myself, but I guess it is possible - at least with vim
> > in a window and a shell in another. For something more integrated, I
> > suggest you to read the following thread of discussion :
> It's feasable, you can run code based on Vim hotkeys (of course) but
> with some quite minor changes all of the the Mini's options could be
> available. I'd like to look into it but other projects have a higher
> priority right now.
> > On the supercollider/chuck comparison - if you are looking at both right
> > now I guess you are looking for informations on this subject too - I
> > would say that supercollider is probably more powerful (more mature with
> > a **lot** of things already existing), but chuck approach to audio
> > programming is much easier to grasp (well, that's only my personal
> > experience)
> I agree in general; SC is far more mature. ChucK does shine in some
> speciffic cases; in my experience SC coders of a intermediate level
> can run into execution order problems that take a SC expert to resolve
> while in ChucK execution order should always be deterministic and is
> typically fairly easy to debug.
> ChucK's other big strength is cases where there is a need to have code
> react to UGen output (stop playing after a zero-crossing, for
> Generally there is a fair amount of things that are trivial in one and
> would be a huge headache in the other.
> Which is easier to grasp seems to depend on the person, for every
> person who feels right at home with A and finds B arcane there will be
> somebody who feels the exact opposite, or so it seems. I don't think I
> have ever heard of anyone being fluent in both, but I saw quite a few
> cases of people into one admiring some aspect of the other a lot.
> P.S. It can't be assumed that all SC users are baby-eating devil
> worshipers; some might be on a diet or unable to find babies :-p
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users