On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM, James McCartney <asynth_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that given Ge's goals, different choices had to be made. I
> don't want to make this into a Chuck vs SC thread.
>
> What I meant about tempo was that (at least at the time I looked at
> Chuck which was admittedly early in its development) if you were to
> schedule an event some time representing a certain number of beats in
> the future and then later change the tempo, the time of the future
> event would not automatically adjust in the proper manner. And if you
> have several "shreds" running then they could get out of sync across
> tempo changes. In SC, if events are scheduled on a tempo clock and the
> tempo changes, even at arbitrary points between events, then events
> being scheduled from different tasks will stay in sync.
>
> I don't even find "tempo" in the Chuck manual. In the section on time
> and timing, durations are only in seconds or samples. There is an
> example of defining a "quarter" as fixed at half a second.
I wrote one in ChucK:
http://alltom.com/pages/cyclone
--
Tom Lieber
http://AllTom.com/
http://ckvlang.org/
Received on Fri Jan 22 2010 - 20:32:19 GMT