So I'm trying to install QuteCsound beta 0.6, and there's a missing .dll, so
I want to roll back to 0.5. In my downloads folder I have the installer for
0.5.0-install-win32-f. But the QuteCsound 0.6 installer is for win32-d. (And
even though there's a 32 in there, it's complaining about a missing 64 dll.
Go figure.) Maybe that's the problem.

The trouble is, I don't actually recall offhand whether I'm using the -f or
the -d version of Csound 5.11. So I peer into the folders in C:/Program
Files (x86) ... and I can't determine that.

This is, I think, a problem that could be fixed. I can guess that there may
be reasons for continuing to have both the floats and the doubles versions
floating around. But it does seem that there ought to be some easy,
unambiguous way to look at the files and see what you've got. "csound.exe"
is not very explanatory as a filename. And since presumably the filename
can't be changed ... how about putting that information in the readme?

There's a readme in the root directory for Csound -- but it doesn't say
which version has been installed. This could be fixed pretty easily. Just a
suggestion.

--JA

Try running Csound.exe

It announces what version it isl for exampleon this machine

ulsoor:/home/jpff # ~jpff/Sourceforge/csound5/csound
time resolution is 1000.000 ns
0dBFS level = 32768.0
Csound version 5.12 beta (double samples) Jun  2 2010
libsndfile-1.0.21

>
> So I'm trying to install QuteCsound beta 0.6, and there's a missing .dll,
> so
> I want to roll back to 0.5. In my downloads folder I have the installer
> for
> 0.5.0-install-win32-f. But the QuteCsound 0.6 installer is for win32-d.
> (And
> even though there's a 32 in there, it's complaining about a missing 64
> dll.
> Go figure.) Maybe that's the problem.
>
> The trouble is, I don't actually recall offhand whether I'm using the -f
> or
> the -d version of Csound 5.11. So I peer into the folders in C:/Program
> Files (x86) ... and I can't determine that.
>
> This is, I think, a problem that could be fixed. I can guess that there
> may
> be reasons for continuing to have both the floats and the doubles versions
> floating around. But it does seem that there ought to be some easy,
> unambiguous way to look at the files and see what you've got. "csound.exe"
> is not very explanatory as a filename. And since presumably the filename
> can't be changed ... how about putting that information in the readme?
>
> There's a readme in the root directory for Csound -- but it doesn't say
> which version has been installed. This could be fixed pretty easily. Just
> a
> suggestion.
>
> --JA
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/doubles-vs.-floats-%28minor-whine%29-tp28857296p28857296.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

jpff-2 wrote:
> 
> Try running Csound.exe
> 
> It announces what version it isl for exampleon this machine
> 
I know I can do that by opening a Command Prompt window and using cd to
navigate over to Program Files (x86)Csound/bin ... but not all users,
especially novices, will know how to do that. If you just double-click on
csound.exe, the Command Prompt window opens and closes again before you can
read anything.

I'm not saying it's impossible to winkle out the information ... I'm just
suggesting a way to make Csound a little less obtuse for new users, by
adding a line to the readme.

--JA

"...make Csound a little less obtuse for new users..."

But where's the fun in that? (a bit of light humor)

The learning curve almost killed my interest in Csound when I first started
looking at it a few years ago. The funny thing was that the language itself
is conceptually very simple and straightforward. The devil is in the
details: figuring out how to connect a program to the sound and/or MIDI
system, locating and reading external files, etc. 

The analogy I like is that Csound is like a giant factory. There are
complete rooms in the factory full of equipment that has been superseded,
another room full of manuals and examples, and no guarantee that anything
necessarily works properly and/or the way you expect. 

The factory is full of workers but they're mostly busy doing .... things.
Some are experts and some are beginners like me. 

There's another factory somewhere (the developers) where people are working
on the machines, fixing some, breaking others, adding new machines.

"Adding new machines"and not removing any is key. Nothing ever gets thrown
away in this factory since there are manufacturing instructions going back
many years that are supposed to work forever.

Well...there's a probably tortured metaphor drawn out exquisitely on the
rack of my personal experiences and biases.


Jim Aikin wrote:
> 
> 
> jpff-2 wrote:
>> 
>> Try running Csound.exe
>> 
>> It announces what version it isl for exampleon this machine
>> 
> I know I can do that by opening a Command Prompt window and using cd to
> navigate over to Program Files (x86)Csound/bin ... but not all users,
> especially novices, will know how to do that. If you just double-click on
> csound.exe, the Command Prompt window opens and closes again before you
> can read anything.
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible to winkle out the information ... I'm just
> suggesting a way to make Csound a little less obtuse for new users, by
> adding a line to the readme.
> 
> --JA
> 

rasputin wrote:
> 
> "...make Csound a little less obtuse for new users..."
> 
> But where's the fun in that? (a bit of light humor)
> 
> The learning curve almost killed my interest in Csound when I first
> started looking at it a few years ago. The funny thing was that the
> language itself is conceptually very simple and straightforward. The devil
> is in the details: figuring out how to connect a program to the sound
> and/or MIDI system, locating and reading external files, etc. 
> 
I like your analogy, and I resonate with your experience.

My first synthesizer was an analog modular (a Serge). Patching signals into
inputs with named variables is not very different from patching them using
cords, so programming instruments in Csound seemed very natural to me from
the beginning.

On the other hand, we have things like portaudio and command-line flags to
grapple with. These things are quite foreign to most musicians, even those
who are experts at Pro Tools or Ableton Live.

--JA