1 Feb
2008
1 Feb
'08
1:40 a.m.
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
The second problem (besides its lack of interactivity)
I have about faust
is that is purely functional. I have programmed lots of code in purely
functional style, and I like it very much, so thats not the issue. But, I
feel that being forced to work in one paradigm gives me less
possibilities.
Yep, it takes some discipline, but you also get to reap the benefits
(clear semantics, better output code).
It would be interesting to see how the routine would
look like in faust, if you have the time. :-)
I don't have the time to really work out all the details of your example
right now, but looking at http://www.notam02.no/~kjetism/sandysth/, the
-1 or 1 decider should be easy to do:
max_add = hslider("Max add", 0, 0, 100, 1);
d(y,f,pc) = e(y,f,pc) ~ _;
e(y,f,pc,d) = select2(abs(y) < 1, -1*sgn(y),
select2(abs(f) <= max_add/100, -1*sgn(f),
select2(pc==1, d, -1*d)));
sgn(x) = (x>0)-(x<0);
process = d;
(Note that Faust's select2 is a bit different from if-then-else, it has
the branches reversed.)
Faust takes a bit of a different mindset. Instead of thinking in terms
of a memory cell to be changed, imagine a signal that changes over time,
then it's actually quite easy. Of course we've all been raised on a von
Neumann diet, so it takes some time to relearn how to do certain things.
But for me this is what makes Faust so much fun to use. :)
Albert
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag