On Dec 6, 2007 12:59 AM, barry threw wrote: > > i also see that he says: > > > > "Csound is better adapted > > than Pd for batch processing and it handles polyphony much better than > > Pd does. On the other hand, Pd has a better developed real-time > > control > > structure than Csound." > > > > is that last statement really true (anymore)? > > > > > If better means "easier to figure out how to do" then yes, it is > still true. I would also say easier to implement. I'm exploring other possibilities than Pd now, but it is still far quicker to hit Ctl-Shift-V and place a vertical slider than it is to type all the necessary FLTK commands, or Tk. Do you want to teach your students how to write FLTK code to construct sliders, or how to manipulate sound? I have always liked Pd too for its data structures and arbitrary drawing of elements, but honestly that's pretty hard to do for anything practical. Probably just as simple to use Tcl/Tk in that case. Pd is useful for showing how stuff works for 2 simple facts: you can see the entire program flow visually, and anything useful you do has to be assembled from the ground up. I tend to prefer Csound even for low-level stuff just because it's quicker to type than to mouse; but as far as others understanding what you're doing, there's something to be said for graphical connections. The algorithms in Csound's higher-level opcodes are completely hidden from those not in the know. I'm not convinced Csound is the best educational tool for all occasions, but for certain subjects and certain students, definitely. I tend to think people who are turned off by sine wave equations will be turned off by code too. Non-csounders who look over my shoulder while I'm using Csound usually have no idea or interest in what I'm doing. But if I were working with pretty motivated and intelligent people, I'd push them towards Csound. How important is real-time control to your class? -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com