OK I've been clued into this thread and will give my 2 cents.
First some error corrections. SuperCollider is a buffer computation engine, not sample at a time. I do have an experimental code generating version that does sample at a time, which I talked about at Dartmouth, so perhaps that is where that conception comes from. I will probably release it eventually or better, a version merged with the block version. The block oriented engine is a lot faster. I do not have anything against Linux and I am not an Apple robot/zombie. It has taken me some time to get SC ported to MacOSX. I'm still not done with that. I have always said that after that I would look at a linux port. I would like to do that. A note about Cmix: its original author, Paul Lansky has been using SuperCollider recently. see: http://www.music.princeton.edu/~newton/group/past.html My own idea of what the advantages of SC over MAX, pd, CSound, SAOL are these: SuperCollider is a fully object oriented language like Smalltalk, with first class functions/closures and coroutines (like Scheme). If your programming experience is only C,C++,Java and you've never used closures and coroutines, then there is a level of expressive power there goes beyond those languages. Also I think that SuperCollider has the most flexible argument passing of any programming language. All arguments may be specified either positionally or by keyword, or can default to a value, or can be bound from a key-value pair in a current environment. You can have variable length argument lists. You can pass too many arguments or too few. This lets you be really promiscuous with your use of functions. I used MAX for a long time and after writing a text based language object for it, I found that I did all my composition using that and used MAX only for the GUI and the I/O. Most complex state oriented algorithms can be stated much more briefly in a sufficiently powerful language, and in addition will be much more readable and maintainable than a bunch of boxes and wires. I've performed live with MAX. I know all about that. SuperCollider can build patches algorithmically and with a few lines of code define complex patches. By expressing common signal processing structures like parallel branches and sequential chains as code, patches can be re-dimensioned easily. By not having to express all the redundant information in patches with parallel structures, you can write them more quickly and change them more easily. By being able to describe structures using closures, you can build up a library of components that cannot just be plugged together, but can functionally manipulate the structure. It would be impossible, practically, to duplicate the SC Patterns library in MAX or pd. I know because before there was SuperCollider I tried to write something like it in MAX. And it would be pretty hard to do so in any language other than one with continuations like Scheme. The patterns library is a way of representing any composition that can be expressed as a sequence of events, as a lazy evaluated stream, and provides ways of manipulating the stream in a functional manner. The events contain key-value pairs for all the attributes of an event. The dynamic binding of values in events to synthesis instrument arguments insulates the composition from details of instrument implementation. Like any tools there are some things you can do better with some than with others. SC has not been good at some things historically like its MIDI event handling. There are some areas that SC can do that the others can't touch. I believe that, for algorithmic composition, nothing else is better. --- For a look at some docs, there is a set of them in html form from version 2.2.7 at: http://www.audiosynth.com/schtmldocs/index.html -- --- james mccartney [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.audiosynth.com> SuperCollider - a real time synthesis programming language for the PowerMac. <ftp://www.audiosynth.com/pub/updates/SC2.2.14.sea.hqx>
