puk wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what is the difference between PWGL and puredata > (http://puredata.info/) ? > I didn't looked deeply into the specifications of PWGL but it seems to be > the same kind of tool. > I'm not telling you should switch, just wondering. > Hi, I'm using Pd (and MaxMSP) since many years. The main difference is that Pd is based on the real time elaboration of both control datas and audio synthesis, and PWGL is focused on the solution of compositional tasks (but now it includes too a synthesis engine). PWGL, also offers a very, very good notation package (and probably easy to interface with Lilypond, for exaple). Of course the workflow of the two program is very different, being pwgl lisp based, and thus connected with the solution of certain compositional problems using CLOS, pattern matching search etc. I'm quite sure, though, that a very good programmer could obtain similar results using Pd, Supercollider, PWGL, Chuck, Csound, but still (not being a programmer, mainly a musician), I prefer to use the tool that is primarly thought for a certain task. Max/Pd were born for control the ircam dsp workstation, PatchWork for composers in the so called "computer-assisted composition". The only program related with it is Ircam's Openmusic, that, I think, is somehow based on an early version of PatchWork. (but OpenMusic is released for linux as free software BUT without documentation and without libraries). Pwgl (the follower of PatchWork), was completely redesigned, offers a complete and reliable notation package (that in openmusic is really basic), a nice OpenGL interface, and, thanks to the integrate synthesis engine, it gives a complete environment for composition, notation, and synthesis all in one. (Didn't mean to give a lecture, sorry for the long mail, I understood you were not suggesting to switch :-) Libero -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PWGL-in-wine%2C-problems-tp17242754p17252302.html Sent from the Wine - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
