On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:45AM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:07:22PM -0400, S. Massy wrote: > > > Just idle curiosity, but why do you guys recommend PD over SC or csound? > > I had the idea they were more or less equally suited. > > For someone who knows them well, yes. > > But in the other case, if you have to learn one of them > from scratch just to solve a particular problem, I'm pretty > sure that Pd is the easier way to go. And that is *not* just > because it has a graphical user interface. > > Take SC. I love the way the synthesis engine works and can > be controlled using OSC. But, even as a programmer, that is > someone used to writing formal instructions and descriptions > in a text based format, I have to *fight* the SC language all > the time. IMHO it's a mess, and it seems to be designed to > allow spectacular one-liners rather than for clarity and > consistency. I'm using it now only to write synthdefs, for > all the rest I use Python. Thanks. I was just curious, since PD is the only one of the major synthesis engines I haven't played with (because of its graphical nature). And I do catch your drift about SC. In fact, it seems to be a common sin of all those languages, as they seem to evolve out of need (functionality) rather than design (semantics): it can be good or bad, but usually is confusing to the newcomer, whatever else it is. Cheers, S.M. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
