Re: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider
From: Kasper Souren (kasper_AT_303.nu)
Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 16:26:09 EEST


> Well, I admit that I don't know SuperCollider... So... If you like
> SuperCollider so much, why not buy a Mac? This is not intended to be a
> flipant question, I am curious why you have choosen to use Linux over
> Mac?

Ok, this question wasn't asked to me, but I can answer it for myself. I
had an iBook, but I couldn't work with MacOS 9. I felt like I was thrown
back 10 years in time, only to be able to control the thing with a
mouse, and a very crappy multitasking environment. I find even Windows
2000 much nicer to use than MacOS 9.

I tried SC, and I liked it, but I couldn't get through the crap of the
OS. I think I might be buying a Mac again, in a while, when both Max and
SC will be running under MacOs X.

> Could you offer some comparisons here? What things are possible in
> SuperCollider that are either not available or are more difficult in
> SAOL?

AFAIK SuperCollider is much more object oriented. I think it's even
'completely' OO, more than C++ or Java. And OO is a completely
different way of working, and of concepts than structural programming.

> Could you please explain why SuperCollider is so excellent? What
> features does it have that other languages should have?

- it's object oriented
- quite flexible (not as rigid as C++)
- it's realtime, and it 'knows about time'
- it has an interpreter
- it's easy to learn (probably because of the 4mentioned features)

> Could you please expand on your thoughts here? What things are needed
> that are missing in the Music N line? I am assuming from this statement
> that the language should be a complete programming language. What things
> require this? How "complete" does the language need to be?

- it's not a Music N language. If you want (and you probably want that)
you can completely forget about orcs and scores. (There is an OrcScore
object available though :)

I think there isn't anything missing in the Music N line, because Music
N is a certain paradigm. A Music N language is not meant to have OO, nor
an interpreter... otherwise it's not Music N anymore.

Yes, with a musical programming language you should be able to do
anything any programming language can do. Maybe some things are not as
easy to implement as in languages meant for other purposes, but
definitely possible. (It would be nicer if there WAS a GNUcollider, and
you could easily interface to stuff in C++, C, Pascal, ...)

I don't know how complete a musical language exactly has to be, i.e.
what would be the minimum requirements. But I think that's not the way
to think about it, it doesn't have to minimally complete, it has to be
sufficiently complete.
And you definitely need classes (and methods, inheritance, ..),
functions, control structures, basic mathematical functions. And, which
is probably the hardest part, internally there has to be a notion of time.

greetz,
Kasper


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 16:16:56 EEST