Re: [LAD] Something like Processing for audio

Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 15:15 -0400, Darren Landrum wrote:
>> Paul Davis wrote:
>>> Processing has wrapped a language with a lot *less* power than
>>> SuperCollider in a front end that is much easier to learn. Its a shame.
>>> But it also seems to be way the world works.
>> So we would rather have a *more* powerful language wrapped in a front
>> end that is very difficult to learn? We already have that in spades, and
>> it's proven a good way to scare off people with good ideas who are not
>> skilled in coding enough (or patient enough) to get the most basic tasks
>> to work.
>>
>> What we need is a nice and powerful back-end that is wrapped in an
>> easy-to-learn front end. The best of both worlds, if it's possible.
>
> Why do we need this?

I thought I was clear on this, but I'll restate: We need this so that
people who are not skilled coders, but have other skills, in math and
physics and electronics perhaps, can bring their skills to bear in
making synths and effects while making the coding side as painless as
possible. The end result will hopefully be synths and effects usable by
*musicians* and not just other coders. Click and play, as it were.

Really, I'm in that exact category, so I'm the last person who should be
trying to create a Processing-alike for audio. I'll probably get nowhere
by myself. Oh well, it doesn't seem to be stopping me.

I want my musical skills to be all I need to be able to make music on Linux.

-- Darren
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Sep 29 00:15:04 2008