Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Direct In
From: Rob (lau_AT_kudla.org)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 22:20:42 EEST
On Saturday 26 July 2003 13:14, Rick Taylor wrote:
> Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for composing sequences of
> symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly
> do this:
> http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/
I may use emacs, but I don't consider myself an "emacs user". I do all my
perl coding in emacs, but stopped having time to mess with elisp about 10
years ago. The only reason I keep using emacs is that ^p, ^n, ^f and ^b et
al are burned into my finger muscles by now. Heretical though it may be, I
consider it to be just an editor, easily replacable by the likes of jove, mg
and jed in a pinch, though I'm enough used to typing things like M-x
comment-region that I haven't switched to jed fulltime.
I don't like lisp or its siblings or descendents very much (though I thought
the implementation in sawfish was useful), and that's what's kept me from
picking up Nyquist as well though I expect to use it to customize Audacity in
the future. I'll likely come up with some way to generate midi or (better
yet) csound files out of perl code one of these days. Maybe I could even
generate Nyquist source files so that I could have the benefits of that
language without all that Lisp.
But I'm a programmer by trade, so it shouldn't be surprising that I am a
little more open to that kind of thing than normal musicians. There would be
no way in hell I could promote such a solution to my friends and colleagues
who own or work at studios or are themselves musicians: people, in other
words, who aren't "computer musicians", but who are using computers to record
their non-electronic music because it's easier/cleaner/cheaper than tape.
Audacity, on the other hand, for quickie jobs (and maybe eventually Ardour
for the main job) may be something they could look at and say "Yeah, I could
do my work in that."
Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 23:17:32 EEST