>
> If you don't need hardware accelerated fancy graphics and effects,
> I see no reason for staying away from SC for duing the GUI for
> such stuff. I mean, using java or C++ has its own merits, but only
> if they do good for what you actually do.
>
>
> I see. I don't really need fancy graphics, but I want to give a high
> level of interaction. I'm not yet sure about what I'm going to do, but
> I need a lot of drag-and-drop functionalities, the possibility to
> select and group objects, drawing lines to link them and some little
> animation (maybe changing colour objects, or flashing ones) would be
> nice to have.
>
> I'm pretty sure I can do all these things pretty easily in Processing.
> I'm not sure what are the limits of Supercollider in GUI programming.
>
>
> This is also doable, in fact thats what I do with the Hadron Quark
> (check out the screencast if you haven't done it already:
>
http://www.batuhanbozkurt.com/projectslab/supercollider/hadron ).
> Saving states of your objects, instances, whatever form sclang is
> a lot easier. The two approaches require very different designs.
> In SC, you can save your stuff as strings to a text file, then
> load it and call .interpret on them, and they are ready. This
> won't be the case if you use Java, you will only be able to save
> client side information. Initializing everything back is a lot harder.
>
>
> This seems very cool and answers to a lot of my questions. Anyway, I
> see that you work on a Mac, while I use Linux. What are you using for
> the GUI? Is it cross platform?
>
> Regarding saving states in a text file: I talked about XML because I
> also wanted to try to use the XMPP protocol and I think it just works
> with XML file. Does supercollider support XML files?
>
>
> Processing is very powerful, but for certain things. If you are
> really on the visual sides of things, that is something processing
> is powerful at. But if you don't need fancy hw accelerated
> graphics, it is essentially a tool, and don't do much for you by
> itself. So I think you shouldn't think like "processing is
> powerful, so it will work for me", instead you should evaluate
> your programming language candidates based on what you actually
> want to do. Staying away from sclang will cost you much, you
> should balance it with something else, I think.
>
>
> Yes, you're right. In the end I think I have to decide (with my
> teacher) whether I'm going to create a prototype for a sequencer or a
> working supercollider application.
>
>
>
> I see, good luck on realizing your ideas. I remember reading a
> quote from John Maeda: "When you use other people's software you
> live in somebody else's dream". We all experience it daily,
> looking forward to see how your dream takes shape.
>
>
> :)
> Nice quote. And again: thank you.
>
>