Re: [sc-dev] Towards SC 4

[Jonatan Liljedahl <lijon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Using a new language would also be a good opportunity to only port the
essential stuff. And the improvements of sclang we've talked about
here is also a huge project (namespace scoping, dynamic module
loading, etc..) so perhaps it's not so clear which one is more or less
work.

But I agree that sclang is a lot more elegant and cooler than python! :)

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Scott Wilson <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would also make an SC4 an *immensely* larger project, since all of the
> domain specific stuff would have to be reimplemented in the new language,
> and we'd get no reuse of existing SC lang code. I agree that an SC4 is a
> good opportunity to break things to make them better, but a new language
> would also mean that there would be no compatibility with SC3 code. It's
> interesting, but it sounds more like something completely new, rather than
> an SC4.
>
> S.
>
> On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:26, Andrea Valle <valle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not a programmer guru at all but really, SC vs. Python…
> I'm a regular Python user but
> SC is *much* more elegant, concise, expressive…
>
> I understand the point but if we want to send emails with SC or similar we
> can use various tricks…
>
> 2c, of course :)
>
> -a-
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Andrea Valle
> --------------------------------------------------
> CIRMA - StudiUm
> Università degli Studi di Torino
> --> http://www.cirma.unito.it/andrea/
> --> http://www.fonurgia.unito.it/andrea/
> --> http://www.flickr.com/photos/vanderaalle/sets/
> --> http://vimeo.com/vanderaalle
> -->  http://www.youtube.com/user/vanderaalle
> --> andrea.valle@xxxxxxxx
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> "This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta
> outs, a lotta what-have-yous."
> (Jeffrey 'The Dude' Lebowski)
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Dan Stowell <danstowell+sc3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 2013/11/12 Scott Wilson <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2013, at 13:42, Bovermann Till <till.bovermann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> (2) What about (officially) extending an existing state of the art
> programming language such as Ruby ( https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ ) or
> JavaScript with
> (a) guaranteed realtime waiting (as crucial for musical tasks) and
> (b) synthdef generation?
>
> I have the feeling that Ruby is pretty close to SClang, however it lacks
> both the rt features and the extensive music-oriented library of SC.
>
>
> Be aware that those languages (or individual implementations of them) may or
> may not be realtime friendly.
>
>
> Indeed. Ruby is surprisingly SC-like (although I would favour Python)
> but I believe neither is true-realtime-friendly (Python for sure, cos
> of its gc and its global-interpreter-lock).
>
> Personally I do agree with Till's assertion that we'd gain greatly by
> piggybacking on an existing language, as long as it was a decent one.
> Note that there are some existing possibilities already in overtone,
> scalacollider etc... they don't have an sclang feel though.
> Piggybacking on javascript is a tempting idea given the way the future
> is currently looking. (cf <http://flockingjs.org/>)
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc-dev mailing list
>
> info (subscription, etc.):
> http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
> search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/
>
>
>



-- 
/Jonatan
http://kymatica.com

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/