I don't agree, because:

OSC requires at least 1 setup step

OSC is fiddly on some platforms

Procedural binding is inherently faster

Often, the generation of procedural bindings can be completely automated

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: St�phane Rollandin 
Sent: Oct 11, 2005 3:01 AM
To: csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] Re: Common Music and Csound 5

David Akbari wrote:

>> another possibilty would be to connect Csound and CM using OSC via UDP 
>> -- I think that OSC/UDP is working in CM right now, or if it isnt, it 
>> will be very shortly (ie days not weeks)
>>
> 
> IMHO, this produces the most efficient, least invasive solution.
> 

yes, +1 on this one


Stef


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

On Oct 11, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:

> I don't agree, because:
>
> OSC requires at least 1 setup step
>

Are you referring to the initialization of the port? Really I don't 
think this is a bad thing, to force the user to acknowledge this use of 
their resources plus using OSC allows the possibility of dynamic 
coprocessing of Csound and CM over several computers on a network.

> OSC is fiddly on some platforms
>

Is Windows still cumbersome with OSC? I have a Windows machine with the 
latest Csound5 binary releases and I noticed that there is no OSC 
opcodes... are there acknowledged issues with OSC on Windows? I also 
noticed that the OSC opcodes do not build in the (Csound5 CVS) 
SConstruct by default...

> Procedural binding is inherently faster
>
> Often, the generation of procedural bindings can be completely 
> automated
>

Of course you are correct.

Really it's a question of how soon the Csound5 rc1 will be released to 
date... the suggestion to use OSC was merely to suggest a quick and 
elegant solution that works in tandem with Rick Taube's development 
efforts; this however does not allow the flexibility of interfacing 
with Csound's API... you could use Csound's OSC merely by wrapping the 
executable.

Personally I think it would be great to use Csound5's OSC with CM as 
soon as the facility exists in CM! Although it sounds like your 
implementation is shaping up to do much more than you can do with OSC.


-David



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

There is no reason why the Windows version of CS5 does not have OSC.
It is build and it does work.
==John ffitch


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net