> -Original Message-
> From: James McCartney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 02:50 PM, John Lazzaro wrote:
>
> > submit the SuperCollider
> > language to be an open standard
> > Without taking this step, you're condemning the SC language to a
> > lifetime lim
Stefan Kost hat gesagt: // Stefan Kost wrote:
> I wish you much luck, I've just try but gave up. It's available as source,
> but the configure scripts are not really configuring it. Lots of hardcoded
> defines all around. Anyway on linux you might have more success, I am trying
> it on solaris he
> Robert Melby writes
>
> first declare yourself a working group (let's say XJ5.34) of IMG
> (international made-up group). then declare version x.xx of the
> compiler/interpreter to define the canonical syntax and behaviour of
> the language spec version x.xx .
[...]
And from my experience a
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 04:23:19PM -0500, James McCartney wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 03:57 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
>
> >There are actually two python interpreter implementations,
> >one in C (the standard python distribution) and one in Java
> >(commonly called Jython).
> >
>
>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 02:25:41PM -0700, John Lazzaro wrote:
>
> Without a standards document that precisely defines the semantics of
> a language, there's no way to know what the language is. Even _you_
> don't really know without the document -- every change to the existing
> codebase is a deci
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 04:25 PM, John Lazzaro wrote:
>> Which of these languages has this been done for: Python Ruby Perl?
>> I think that there is only one code tree for each of these languages.
>> Are they condemned?
>
> Yes.
I'm sorry, I disagree with you.
--
--- james mccartney
> james mccartney writes
>
> Which of these languages has this been done for: Python Ruby Perl?
> I think that there is only one code tree for each of these languages.
> Are they condemned?
Yes.
Larry Rosler makes the case for Perl standardization:
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/06/rosler.htm
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 03:57 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
> There are actually two python interpreter implementations,
> one in C (the standard python distribution) and one in Java
> (commonly called Jython).
>
Was it necessary for the language to be formally adopted by some
standards bod
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 03:25:15PM -0500, James McCartney wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 02:50 PM, John Lazzaro wrote:
>
> >submit the SuperCollider
> >language to be an open standard
> >Without taking this step, you're condemning the SC language to a
> >lifetime limited to the prac
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 02:50 PM, John Lazzaro wrote:
> submit the SuperCollider
> language to be an open standard
> Without taking this step, you're condemning the SC language to a
> lifetime limited to the practical lifetime of your implementation(s).
Which of these languages has thi
> --- james mccartney writes
>
> But things have a way of changing in life, so you might sit tight and
> see what happens.
Taking the long view, its more interesting to submit the SuperCollider
language to be an open standard, and to permit royalty-free licensing
for any patents you may have re
>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.
James: you may want to consider taking a lo
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 10:27 AM, Kasper Souren wrote:
> So I would like to know why you don't want SC to be GPL'd. Is it
> because of the money or are there other reasons? I suppose you can't
> live of the money you get from people registering anyway - or am I
> wrong?
I have been
James McCartney wrote:
>
> OK I've been clued into this thread and will give my 2 cents.
>
> 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 wou
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 wh
Hi,
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:42:10 +0200
> Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Paul Winkler hat gesagt: // Paul Winkler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
>>>
SuperCollider is the only program out there that can handle
composition,
> Now OS-X really is a great OS, maybe the best commercial OS now
> available. It's stunning, how they build an intuitive Desktop on a
> Unix-core, something that neither in Gnome nor KDE really worked (I'm
> still prefering the command line over those)
While OS X certainly has its strengths, I c
> This is not really surprising, as OSX is pretty much NeXTStep, and they
> were releasing a version of NeXTStep for Intel Machines many years ago.
> I don't think that Steve Jobs is that short-sighted that he would ignore
> the Intel-platform for too long. How long can Apple continue to sell
> th
Ivica Bukvic wrote:
>
>
> P.S. I heard an interesting rumor regarding OS X. Since its kernel
> (Darwin) has originally been designed on an Intel-compatible platform
> (and is supposedly still being developed by the mixed Intel/Apple
> community) this rumor does not seem so far-fetched, especiall
> > seems like a back-up plan if the deal with Motorola eventually
> > evaporates. Now, if this is true, then I would seriously consider buying
> > OS X just for the sake of Supercollider ;-).
>
> _From the Darwin-FAQ (http://www.darwin.org/projects/darwin/faq.html):
hey if it gets ported to x86
Ivica Bukvic hat gesagt: // Ivica Bukvic wrote:
> P.S. I heard an interesting rumor regarding OS X. Since its kernel
> (Darwin) has originally been designed on an Intel-compatible platform
> (and is supposedly still being developed by the mixed Intel/Apple
> community) this rumor does not seem so
CTED]
[mailto:owner-linux-audio-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael J McGonagle
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider
>
> John Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> > > So rather than steal all the ideas from
Juan Linietsky hat gesagt: // Juan Linietsky wrote:
> I should really start trying out pd..
> btw frank, i have to release a new saturno somewhat soon
> with some of the missing stuff. werent you the author of the
> dx7 module for pd? if so, i'll let you know.
Yes, that's me. Although rx7~, tha
> However, it's more difficult to express composition algorithms
> using constraint based or artificial intelligence techniques.
> That's were a high-level language comes in handy.
>
> Maybe a "python" external object for PD/jMax would be nice?
Hi, it's in the works. (and a simple version with on
Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Paul Winkler hat gesagt: // Paul Winkler wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
>>
>>>SuperCollider is the only program out there that can handle
>>>composition, sound synthesis, real-time, and interactivity in one
>>>package. It make
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:42:10 +0200
Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Winkler hat gesagt: // Paul Winkler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
> > > SuperCollider is the only program out there that can handle
> > > composition, sound synthesi
Paul Winkler hat gesagt: // Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
> > SuperCollider is the only program out there that can handle
> > composition, sound synthesis, real-time, and interactivity in one
> > package. It makes SuperCollider one of the mos
Dustin Barlow wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >Well, if SuperCollider is based on SmallTalk, then yes it would be OO.
> > > >SmallTalk is considered to be one of the first OO languages, from
> >whence
> > > >most others model themselves. I think the only thing that makes
> > > >SmallTalk more "OO" than Java
> >
> > >Well, if SuperCollider is based on SmallTalk, then yes it would be OO.
> > >SmallTalk is considered to be one of the first OO languages, from
>whence
> > >most others model themselves. I think the only thing that makes
> > >SmallTalk more "OO" than Java is that it also abstracts all of t
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
>
> MusicN/Csound/SAOL is also not [...]
One could have taken a look at the MPEG 2 Audio standard when
it came out, played with the reference standard encoder and
decoder, and come to the conclusion that an application like
iTunes wa
Hi Paul,
> John, if you're already working on one, or know anybody else who is,
> give a holler real quick so I don't waste my whole afternoon. :)
No, I've been holding off on JACK until I update my OS from the 2.2
series ... and no one else I know is actively working on it either.
So, your JACK
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:21:19PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
> SuperCollider is the only program out there that can handle
> composition, sound synthesis, real-time, and interactivity in one
> package. It makes SuperCollider one of the most intelligent and
> interesting music applications to me.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:21:20PM -0700, John Lazzaro wrote:
However, this is LAD, not LAU -- the "we" here is in
> theory "content toolmakers" as opposed to "content creators".
> Why should the LAD "we" care about SAOL?
Aside from everything you mentioned, I'll give my own reason:
Beca
Dustin Barlow wrote:
>
> >Well, if SuperCollider is based on SmallTalk, then yes it would be OO.
> >SmallTalk is considered to be one of the first OO languages, from whence
> >most others model themselves. I think the only thing that makes
> >SmallTalk more "OO" than Java is that it also abstract
Michael J McGonagle wrote:
> Kasper Souren wrote:
>
>>>Could you offer some comparisons here? What things are possible in
>>>SuperCollider that are either not available or are more difficult in
>>>SAOL?
>>>
>>AFAIK SuperCollider is much more object oriented. I think it's even
>>'completely' OO,
>Well, if SuperCollider is based on SmallTalk, then yes it would be OO.
>SmallTalk is considered to be one of the first OO languages, from whence
>most others model themselves. I think the only thing that makes
>SmallTalk more "OO" than Java is that it also abstracts all of the
>primitive data ty
Hi everyone,
Interesting posts here on the pros and cons of SAOL by
several folks ... what is being missed here is that the end
goal for SAOL is to embed a SAOL decoder everywhere you would
embed an MP3 decoder today -- PCs, stereos, cell-phones, etc.
This was a language design
Kasper Souren wrote:
>
> > Well, I admit that I don't know SuperCollider... So... If you like
> > SuperCollider so much, why not buy a Mac? This is not intended to be a
> > flipant question, I am curious why you have choosen to use Linux over
> > Mac?
>
> Ok, this question wasn't asked to me, bu
> James is just one person who makes a living, barely, by providing an
> excellent tool for computer musicians. It is unlikely that you will create a
> better tool than SuperCollider. But you may cut into his sales enough that
> he can no longer afford to support it. That will probably not help pe
> Well, I admit that I don't know SuperCollider... So... If you like
> SuperCollider so much, why not buy a Mac? This is not intended to be a
> flipant question, I am curious why you have choosen to use Linux over
> Mac?
Ok, this question wasn't asked to me, but I can answer it for myself. I
had
Paul Davis wrote:
>
> with all due respect to Eric S. and John L., as much as SAOL improves
> on Csound, comparing it to SuperCollider is like comparing ... well,
> its exactly like comparing an incomplete version of C to Smalltalk.
Well, I admit that I don't know SuperCollider... So... If you l
>John Lazzaro wrote:
>>
>> > So rather than steal all the ideas from SuperCollider, why don't you inven
>t
>> > something better?! Design a new language and create a new musical paradigm
>!
>>
>> No -- come work on Structured Audio instead. We're happy to have multiple
>> implementations of the
John Lazzaro wrote:
>
> > So rather than steal all the ideas from SuperCollider, why don't you invent
> > something better?! Design a new language and create a new musical paradigm!
>
> No -- come work on Structured Audio instead. We're happy to have multiple
> implementations of the language, a
> This is obviously missing in MP4-SA. Is there work being done on
> creating an SAOL interpreter?
There's a really slow interpeter that's the reference implementation
(saolc, by Eric Schierer:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~eds/mpeg4-old/sa-decoder.html
And there's a VM interpeter project out of E
> No -- come work on Structured Audio instead. We're happy to have multiple
> implementations of the language, as an MPEG standard for audio synthesis,
> the _goal_ is to have multiple interoperable implementations. See:
One of the things of SC I like is the fact that it's an interpreted
langua
> So rather than steal all the ideas from SuperCollider, why don't you invent
> something better?! Design a new language and create a new musical paradigm!
No -- come work on Structured Audio instead. We're happy to have multiple
implementations of the language, as an MPEG standard for audio synt
> From: Kasper Souren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [linux-audio-dev] SuperClonider
> Then I started thinking that it might be possible to start a free
> project that is source code compatible with SuperCollider.
James is just one person who makes a living, barely, by prov
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 03:16:12PM +0200, Peter Hanappe wrote:
> years. My current project aims at a language which implements a subset
> of Python. There is some information at
> http://www.hanappe.org/iiwurt.html. Take a look, it already tackles some
Maurizio Puxeddu was talking about extendin
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:43:42 +0200, CK wrote:
> > If you don't know SuperCollider, check www.audiosynth.com. It's the best
> > audio/music programming environment/language I've ever used or even seen.
> > But it's not free, as in both freedom and money. You need a Mac and 250 US$.
>
> that's
Kasper Souren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [cut]
>
> Then I started thinking that it might be possible to start a free
> project that is source
> code compatible with SuperCollider. SC is a language like Smalltalk, and so
> GNU Smalltalk will be a good starting point.
>
> [cut]
>
> Somebody interested? C
I read:
> Then I started thinking that it might be possible to start a free
> project that is source
> code compatible with SuperCollider. SC is a language like Smalltalk, and so
> GNU Smalltalk will be a good starting point.
I thought about this (but not too much) a while ago , what I had in
Hi!
>
> Then I started thinking that it might be possible to start a free
> project that is source
> code compatible with SuperCollider. SC is a language like Smalltalk,
> and so GNU Smalltalk will be a good starting point.
Did you talk to james lately? Some (quite long actually) time ago he was
Hi,
Yesterday I had another SuperCollider lesson. So again I was tempted to
buy a Mac.
But I don't want to spend 1200 euro for a secondhand laptop while the
one I have is
still fine. And I definitely don't want to buy an big Mac.
Then I started thinking that it might be possible to start a fre
53 matches
Mail list logo
