15 Jul
2011
15 Jul
'11
11:55 p.m.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:25:37 -0300
Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2011/7/15 Renato <rennabh(a)gmail.com>om>:
thanks for the suggestion, I might look into that in the near future...
has someone ever thought of python bindings?
anyways, I don't hate sclang, I just remember that achieving some
things with it has required more frustration than with other
languages - but I also have to say that I've been using it mostly for
managing HID devices and midi, something that it can do but certainly
isn't its main focus. Probably if I'd use it for audio synthesis I'd
have a different idea.
cheers
renato
I second that... I'm by no means an expert of
programming languages,
but sclang/sc really seems inconsistent and sort of messed up. I
mean, it is *good* because you can easily do many non trivial
things, but it could be much better organized IMHO
Some criticisms are related to the possibilities of using different
syntax for the same job, unlike Python where one job has one syntax.
etc.. This a valid criticism and was discussed a while ago in the
sc-dev. But you can't really changes this kind of stuff without
breaking old code, what you can do is to define a recommended style to
people to follow.
If you really hate sclang you can still use SuperCollider (scsynth)
from Haskell (hsc3) or Scala (scalacollider), two modern and very
successful languages.