On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 14:17 +0100, Kassen wrote:
> I'd be happy to help draft a language side specification or comment on
> it if Ge (or Perry/Dan/Rebecca/?) would be in.
That'd be really great!
> I don't think it need be "all or nothing", BTW. If we would have just
> a good standard and one implementation then other systems could catch
> up later. Just a single implementation would already be useful on it's
> own. A single implementation without a good standard would of course
> cause issues later.
We have a good reference implementation - the supercollider server and
client by Jamie. My haskell and perl implementations are a bit hacky
but work (I'm using them).
There's confusion here though between GSoC and netclock. I see a GSoC
application being for many project ideas of which work on netclock would
only be one. I don't think there's any point in putting all the work in
to an application just for netclock. We could just put the work into
hacking on netclock ourselves.
By "all or nothing" I mean either we get mentors from all of the "big
three" open source livecoding languages with some interesting project
ideas to match, or we put our time into something else. At the moment
I'm veering towards the latter but at least we got some interest in
netclock out of it!
alex
Received on Thu Mar 05 2009 - 14:11:41 GMT