[chuck-users] embedding ChucK, and Windows8, ARM, etc.
hems.inlet at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 08:36:01 EST 2013
> > This licence thing is a very tuff subject, indeed! I wish the world
> > easier!!
> I think it actually makes it as easy as it will get. Licences give you
> extra options. Sure; options under certain conditions, but they are
> options that would not otherwise be there.
> > ----- A*bit of OT*-----*
Yeah, sorry for talking about SC here.
> > I must say your point of view of Supercollider is completed*mistaken.
> > Its not cause most of the code you find is ugly, that the language is
> > ugly.
> > Actually from all the languages you were able to link in your email,
> > SuperCollider is probably the one that lets you do the most beautiful
> > code, its all about how capable you're.
> Sorry, you lost me for a moment. Did I say that? SC took a bit of a
> "kitchen-sink" approach to syntax; giving many options for many
> things. That -I am sure- is really cool if you'd like to write
> "poetry" in it,
yeah my goal is always to write beautiful poems. and am sure if you're a
coder that is able to write readable code, supercollider will allow you
more than one way to do that. bad for beginners, great for coders.
I remember when i started chuck everything simply work - i was very
impressed - everything was super accurate, was the oposite of
my beginning with supercollider where i barely new if i was dealing with
BEATS / MINUTES / SECS.
But after a few weeks ( ok, not a few, some weeks ) i got my head around
it, and now i know how to do accurate and not accurate clocking :P
> I also gather it can be confusing if you are a novice
> and would like to find the common ground between 5 examples by
yeah that sucks big time, the documentation weren't very friendly until few
Supercollider learning curve is definitely bigger ( way bigger ) than
chuck, in the other hand there's way more documentation to be read and way
more code to be used.
> different authors. It does take a lot more from functional programming
> which I agree often leads to beautiful code. Then again I find a
> certain beauty in ChucK's tendency to be straightforward and sometimes
> a bit blunt too.
I really love chuck, and i think the way it makes possible to create and
re-chain channel strips is a must! super sexy! loads of claps for chuck!
The only problem for me was when i started creating my classes and dealing
with events i started having some limitations which lead me to come back to
supercollider, where classes, inheritance and other syntax things gives my
extremely OO ideas a better housing.
Also the extensions in SC ( Quarks ) make it very easy to share code, maybe
we should look on making something for chuck.
Something like "brew for chuck" ? Am sure a quick solution can be written
using node.js + GIT
> You can get ugly or beautiful in any language. I swear I even saw
> readable Perl once ;-)
Don't get me wrong, am with you ( completely with you )
And I think chuck is super sexy and i would love to keep chucking.
I would love to help on improving the syntax and OO, and all that jazz. But
unfortunately i had to prioritise my idea over digging chuck source code.
Hopefully at some point i'll be able to convert my SC classes to chuck ( :
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users