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 here.
-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 limited to the
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 decision
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).
Was it
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 would
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
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 look
--- 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
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 this
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 practical
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 body
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.html
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 [EMAIL
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
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, sound synthesis,
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
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 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, especially
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
their
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
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 synthesis,
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 makes SuperCollider
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~, that's
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 an
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
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 types
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, more than C++ or
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 abstracts all of
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:
Because I'm
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.
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:
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 was
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
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
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
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
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? Comments?
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 really
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 extending
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
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
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
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, as an
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 language, as an
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 like
45 matches
Mail list logo
