On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 13:22 -0800, Eric Hedekar wrote:
> You know I was kinda looking for a similar "these are the
> (dis)advatages of each language" reply from someone with experience.
> I'm interested in things like full blown Ruby or Python, but I'm
> worried that they might be too daunting of a language. Are languages
> like ChucK or supercollider that focus on audio limited in any regard?
I would say definitely not. That focus means they have fewer
limitations in that domain. In my experience music libraries for
general purpose languages are based around rather restricted ideas about
what music is, and wildly outdated tech such as general midi.
Also I've heard a couple of experienced hackers (whose opinions I
greatly respect) who have independently heaped praise upon the
supercollider language itself. This surprised me somewhat, it seems it
is a very fine example of an object oriented language.
I'm desperately trying to get a grasp of hsc, the Haskell bindings for
the supercollider synth. I'm now really tempted to try out impromptu
too, it sounds really good...
alex
Received on Tue Feb 13 2007 - 01:33:04 GMT