Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki hat gesagt: // Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
Sorry to jump in in the middle of thread without reading it from the
top. But, I just had to say this brought up images of that compositon
tool Xenakis created ... I can't remember what it was called.
Hallo,
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki hat gesagt: // Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> Sorry to jump in in the middle of thread without reading it from the
> top. But, I just had to say this brought up images of that compositon
> tool Xenakis created ... I can't remember what it was called. Anyone
> here k
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On ons, 2004-09-01 at 21:26, Dave Robillard wrote:
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:
Imagine a sequencer where, instead of little strai
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:48:22PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > Basically, I don't see what needs to be done to liblo, other than the
> > > service discovery part.
> >
> > Nothing, but the API doesnt include enough stuff yet. I dont really want
> > to expand the API until its standardised pr
On lör, 2004-09-04 at 01:41, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 02:52, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> > On ons, 2004-09-01 at 21:26, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > 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
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 18:07, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:53:37 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > Funny you should say that... I'm hoping to find time to add the propsed
> > > rec. for OSC service exploration/enumeration to liblo (not discovery,
> > > thats a seperate problem)
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 02:52, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> On ons, 2004-09-01 at 21:26, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > 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:
>
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:53:37 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > Funny you should say that... I'm hoping to find time to add the propsed
> > rec. for OSC service exploration/enumeration to liblo (not discovery,
> > thats a seperate problem) that would allow (limited) generic OSC clients
> > that c
Jens M Andreasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC mouse-dragging in the piano-roll would "spray paint" notes all over
> the place ... Combine that with a synth patch with very closely spaced
> notes and we are getting pretty close to what you are talking about.
> Perhaps with a bit of portamento t
On ons, 2004-09-01 at 21:26, Dave Robillard wrote:
> 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
Hallo,
Dave Robillard hat gesagt: // Dave Robillard wrote:
> Imagine a sequencer where, instead of little straight bars representing
> notes, the 'piano roll' just allowed you to draw a line to represent
> frequency.. with any angle, straight or curved (bezier), etc. Wow..
>
> Control could be li
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 04:38, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:21:17PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > 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 mo
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:21:17PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Albert Graef) writes:
> 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
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
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
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, there's needs to be an
> explicitly defined standard that says "this
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 void pointers.
> > Things like typesafety, getting rid of macros in
On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 09:28, Steve Harris wrote:
> The obvious problem you're likly to hit is that you still need to speak
> alsa-sequencer or something in order to get events from controllers. You
> can go pure-OSC by accepting OSC 'm' types or occam format OSC messages
> and writing a simple, ext
> 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 void pointers.
> Things like typesafety, getting rid of macros in favour of inline
> functions. The STL is another real rea
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:15:24 -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 C; t
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 C; the only thing it lacks
is syntactic sugar. I wish there was a real C
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 i
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 implemented simple messages so far - but I'm using
> liblo for my
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:28:50 +0100, Steve Harris wrote
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Ok, so I'm playing with osc (currently doing gui->app communication with it)
> > but all my individual apps still talk midi between them. This is quite
> > c
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ok, so I'm playing with osc (currently doing gui->app communication with it)
> but all my individual apps still talk midi between them. This is quite
> cumbersome, as I want to start having lots of controls that midi doe
Hi all,
Ok, so I'm playing with osc (currently doing gui->app communication with it)
but all my individual apps still talk midi between them. This is quite
cumbersome, as I want to start having lots of controls that midi doesn't
support - and I don't really "think" in midi these days anyway.
Is t
42 matches
Mail list logo
