Re: [microsound] chuck or supercollider ?

[Scott Carver <fscthaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's worth trying them both, I think they're quite different, and you  
could very well find inspiration in either of them. However, in terms  
of relative levels of development, Supercollider wins hands-down.  
Chuck does some cool things with scheduling, but it doesn't seem to  
have the huge toolset that SC has. Take a look at: (a) the sc-users  
mailing list, which is huge, busy, and chock full of helpful people,  
(b) JITLib, SC's realtime coding/patching component, which is  
fantastic (it comes bundled with sc), and (c) SC's pattern and stream  
classes (for generating sequences of events), which are incredibly  
powerful and pretty much unique amongst music languages. Those were  
the real killer features for me.

- Scott

On Nov 13, 2005, at 3:32 PM, matias kapo wrote:

> hi, after some years of working with dataflow languages like max  
> and pd
> i decided to learn a new programming language for music. Im very
> interested in chuck and supercollider.... before deciding  one i would
> like to listen opinions from people that have used them. which  
> language
> is more powerful? which one has more posibilities for music creation -
> synthesis? chuck or supercollider?
>
> matias
> --
>   matias kapo
>   matiaskapo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org