Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:43:31 -0600, martin rumori wrote
> so if I'm writing a osc sequencer
are you?
i'd like to see ;-)
Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:02:43 +0100, Steve Harris wrote
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:48:46PM +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
BTW, if you have reasonable OSC covereage I'd be very interested in
compatibility tests between whatever you're using and liblo.
Very early days, I've only im
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 07:48, martin rumori wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:03:18 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > > so if I'm writing a osc sequencer, is the best plan to leave the
> > > mapping open for the user to modify?
> >
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Has anyone else looked at O'Caml? :
http://www.ocaml.org/
I've been coding in it for about 6 weeks and I'm REALLY enjoying
it. Its the most fun I've had coding in ages.
Yes, those modern functional languages really bring back the joy to
hacking. :) The trouble with M
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 04:52, Steve Harris wrote:
> I dont really think OSC needs to replace MIDI, if your doing 12 tone,
> limited polyphony, bandwisth etc. stuff, which most people are, its fine.
>
> - Steve
Sure, but the control issue is a nuisance, even for 'most people' -
assigning numbers to
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 05:48:15 -0600, martin rumori wrote
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:03:18 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > > so if I'm writing a osc sequencer, is the best plan to leave the
> > > mapping open for the user to modify?
At Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:15:54 +1000,
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:15:24 -0400
> Pete Bessman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The D programming language looks very promising in this regard, but
> > its newsgroup faces a daily battle with people who seem more
> > interested
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:24:20AM -0400, Pete Bessman wrote:
> At Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:49:36 +0100,
> Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > Obejctive C is OK, it uses messages (smalltalk style) rather than method
> > calls, and they have some performance limitations, but the class stuff is
> > all sane.
>
>
At Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:49:36 +0100,
Steve Harris wrote:
>
> Obejctive C is OK, it uses messages (smalltalk style) rather than method
> calls, and they have some performance limitations, but the class stuff is
> all sane.
Good call, I forgot about it at the time of writing. It is quite
nice, and I
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:49:36AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> Obejctive C is OK, it uses messages (smalltalk style) rather than method
> calls, and they have some performance limitations, but the class stuff is
> all sane.
i like objc very much as well, didn't have the heart to mention it
here i
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:03:18 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > so if I'm writing a osc sequencer, is the best plan to leave the
> > mapping open for the user to modify?
>
> I would say so yes, its possible that an OSC schema spe wi
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:03:18 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:43:31 -0600, martin rumori wrote
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:46:13PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > I was wondering about this the other day - is there no OSC 'standard'
> > > for how to declare note-ons,
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:15:24 -0400
Pete Bessman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The D programming language looks very promising in this regard, but
> its newsgroup faces a daily battle with people who seem more
> interested in creating a religion than a tool.
I had a bit of a look at D and I was ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:42:18AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> the key element is setting up the tty in medium-raw mode so that you
> can get actual key events from the keyboard rather than ASCII chars
> the way that ncurses normally does.
hi Paul,
ac
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:43:31 -0600, martin rumori wrote
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:46:13PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > I was wondering about this the other day - is there no OSC 'standard'
> > for how to declare note-ons, offs, etc?
> >
> > If OSC really is to become a MIDI replacement, the
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:43:31 -0600, martin rumori wrote:
> AFAIK in the beginning it was never meant as a midi replacement, but
> should -in opposite to midi- not make any assumptions on the musical
> meaning of the data being sent. especially in the field of new music
> or sound art, MIDI is
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:15:24 -0400, Pete Bessman wrote:
> At Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:02:43 +0100,
> Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > I like the OO-in-C style of programming, its pretty much the best of both
> > worlds IMHO. C syntax, but no C++ 'features'.
>
> Seriously. You can easily do Real OOP in
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:47:35 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > The D programming language looks very promising in this regard
>
> The best thing I've seen about D is that it removes the C preprocessor - at
> last! :)
Guh! How could you say that :)
- Steve
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:52:33 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > I like the OO-in-C style of programming, its pretty much the best of
> > both worlds IMHO. C syntax, but no C++ 'features'.
>
> Not mention the lack of a maze of twisty ABI's...
Truely.
> Just a quick side issue, I'm doing a lot
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:04:48 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 14:44, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> > > Getting off topic here, but there's a little more to it than that. 1
> > > Syntactic sugared implementation is much much more preferable to 101
> > > conventions for doing OOP with vo
20 matches
Mail list logo
