I just discovered Haskell, and it seems like a great language for 
music-related work (for example, algorithmic composition or 
computer-assisted composition). It's a "functional language" which means 
that "pure" functions are at the heart of it. A pure function is one 
that has no side-effect (does not modify state). That might seem like a 
limitation at first, but it's a type of simplification that opens the 
door to a very expressive language, and promotes bug-free programs. It's 
the most astonishingly compact and elegant syntax I've ever seen.

It combines strong typing with automatic type inference---which 
basically means you have all the benefits of a strongly typed language 
(including bug prevention and the ability to compile to fast code) with 
the ease of a scripting language.

High-quality, highly-developed compilers and interpreters are available 
for Unix, Mac, and Windows.

It has so many extension modules, I think it might actually be equal to 
Python and Perl and Java. It has a real-time midi module, for instance.

I am planning to switch from Python to Haskell for nearly all my 
music-related coding. Well, I still need to learn more about Haskell 
before I can be confident that is the best choice, but it looks like it is.

-Mike

I'm still learning Haskell, but I became interested in it for the same
reason you did. You should pick up a copy of "The Haskell School of
Expression" by Paul Hudak. It has several chapters on using Haskell to
write musical applications.

Although I've been programming for 30 years, it's not an easy language
to learn, in my opinion. But I think the effort is worth it. It's a
complicated but very powerful language.

David.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Michael P Mossey
 wrote:
> I just discovered Haskell, and it seems like a great language for
> music-related work (for example, algorithmic composition or
> computer-assisted composition). It's a "functional language" which means
> that "pure" functions are at the heart of it. A pure function is one that
> has no side-effect (does not modify state). That might seem like a
> limitation at first, but it's a type of simplification that opens the door
> to a very expressive language, and promotes bug-free programs. It's the most
> astonishingly compact and elegant syntax I've ever seen.
>
> It combines strong typing with automatic type inference---which basically
> means you have all the benefits of a strongly typed language (including bug
> prevention and the ability to compile to fast code) with the ease of a
> scripting language.
>
> High-quality, highly-developed compilers and interpreters are available for
> Unix, Mac, and Windows.
>
> It has so many extension modules, I think it might actually be equal to
> Python and Perl and Java. It has a real-time midi module, for instance.
>
> I am planning to switch from Python to Haskell for nearly all my
> music-related coding. Well, I still need to learn more about Haskell before
> I can be confident that is the best choice, but it looks like it is.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

I'm not too convinced by all the talk on pure functional languages.
My problem with Haskell is that the syntax is so foreign that it is hard
to get going. The advantage I see in Python is that it is not that different
to C; for me this is important because C is pretty much all I always used
(plus some C++). So for scripting, it's quite useful not to have to learn
everything from scratch. I realised I actually only needed two languages,
a fast, compiled, one (C or C++) and something for scripting which was
easy and not too different (Python). But then my programming uses are 
probably
different from yours. I don't do algorithmic music stuff, but signal 
processing.

I believe John Lato has done some work integrating Csound and Haskell.

Regards

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael P Mossey" 
To: "Csound List" 
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:46 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Anyone using Haskell?


>I just discovered Haskell, and it seems like a great language for 
>music-related work (for example, algorithmic composition or 
>computer-assisted composition). It's a "functional language" which means 
>that "pure" functions are at the heart of it. A pure function is one that 
>has no side-effect (does not modify state). That might seem like a 
>limitation at first, but it's a type of simplification that opens the door 
>to a very expressive language, and promotes bug-free programs. It's the 
>most astonishingly compact and elegant syntax I've ever seen.
>
> It combines strong typing with automatic type inference---which basically 
> means you have all the benefits of a strongly typed language (including 
> bug prevention and the ability to compile to fast code) with the ease of a 
> scripting language.
>
> High-quality, highly-developed compilers and interpreters are available 
> for Unix, Mac, and Windows.
>
> It has so many extension modules, I think it might actually be equal to 
> Python and Perl and Java. It has a real-time midi module, for instance.
>
> I am planning to switch from Python to Haskell for nearly all my 
> music-related coding. Well, I still need to learn more about Haskell 
> before I can be confident that is the best choice, but it looks like it 
> is.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

Michael P Mossey wrote:

> I just discovered Haskell,

I've been using Ocaml (another strict statically typed functional
language) for nearly 5 years and a couple of months ago picked up
Haskell which I think is actually even better.

Before picking up Ocaml I had used Python for a couple of years
but I feel with Ocaml and Haskell I get similar levels of productivity
to python, but with significantly improved performance and even
more importantly, siginificantly fewer run time bugs. Nowadays
I rarely use Python  for anything longer than 100 lines of code.

Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/

victor wrote:

> I'm not too convinced by all the talk on pure functional languages.

Having used two such languages, I am convinced. For a large variety
of tasks I can get fast, reliable, working code more quickly in 
languages like Haskell than in anything else.

> My problem with Haskell is that the syntax is so foreign that it is hard
> to get going.

I personaly think the syntax of Haskell is much closer to Python
than Python is to C. If you really want to see some horrible
syntax, go and have a look at Ocaml :-).

> The advantage I see in Python is that it is not that different
> to C;

I suspect what you see as the similarity between C and Python is
actually the programming paradigm; imperative programming with
mutable variables on the C/Python side while Haskell is more about
functional/declarative programming with immutable values.

> for me this is important because C is pretty much all I always used
> (plus some C++). So for scripting, it's quite useful not to have to learn
> everything from scratch. I realised I actually only needed two languages,
> a fast, compiled, one (C or C++) and something for scripting which was
> easy and not too different (Python). But then my programming uses are 
> probably different from yours. I don't do algorithmic music stuff, but
> signal processing.

For signal processing nothing portable can currently beat C (and/or a
subset of C++). However, for a huge range of higher level tasks C and
C++ are simply not a good fit as they require simultaneously  dealing
with high and low level concepts. This is where true high level langauges
like Python, Ocaml and Haskell are useful. However, if you need a
high level language and perfromance, Python is not as good a fit
as compiled languages like Ocaml and Haskell.

> I believe John Lato has done some work integrating Csound and Haskell.

You probably mean this:

    http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/hCsound

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/

victor wrote:
> I'm not too convinced by all the talk on pure functional languages.
> My problem with Haskell is that the syntax is so foreign that it is hard
> to get going. 

I can sympathize... I've just spent the last three days learning Haskell 
and I'm still having trouble doing the simplest things. It's quite 
different than C and Python, but my understanding is that once you get 
going, it is one of the fastest/easiest language to code in.

One of my goals in life is to make music, but I also have the goal of 
continuously improving the way I do things. Haskell represents a huge 
improvement over Python for music applications (other than signal 
processing), plus I'm a computer scientist at heart, so I would rather 
learn something new than keep doing things the old way.

Mike

Another alternative for a modern programming language is SuperCollider, 
which has features of both functional and object-oriented languages 
(SmallTalk was a major inspiration) and has the distinct advantage of 
being an integral part of an excellent music-making system.  Very nice 
to work with.  Though I'm not giving up on Csound + Python (which I use 
in the context of blue).

- Dave

Michael Mossey wrote:
> 
> 
> victor wrote:
>> I'm not too convinced by all the talk on pure functional languages.
>> My problem with Haskell is that the syntax is so foreign that it is hard
>> to get going. 
> 
> I can sympathize... I've just spent the last three days learning Haskell 
> and I'm still having trouble doing the simplest things. It's quite 
> different than C and Python, but my understanding is that once you get 
> going, it is one of the fastest/easiest language to code in.
> 
> One of my goals in life is to make music, but I also have the goal of 
> continuously improving the way I do things. Haskell represents a huge 
> improvement over Python for music applications (other than signal 
> processing), plus I'm a computer scientist at heart, so I would rather 
> learn something new than keep doing things the old way.
> 
> Mike

I have recently taken up Common Music, a lisp based computer music 
language...

http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/#documentation

I must say I like it a lot. It supports csound as well.
I am still learning the details but it seems to have a good library
for creating procedural structures. I like the idea of being able
to prototype pieces with it.

Having programmed for many years now, I am pretty familiar with
C, C++, python, Java, blah, blah. I am really looking for a language
that allows me to think about music at a structurally higher level.
Giving me the ability to easily specify form and how that is projected
on to tonal spaces, with out getting bogged down with syntactical details.
Lisp is a very nice language in this regard.

I am always looking for better ways to do things. I would be curious to
know if anyone out there has had previous experiences with Common Music
or Lisp and how this compares to other high level languages. This Haskel 
looks
intriguing, is there any compelling argument why I should use it versus 
lisp?




Anthony



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Seidel" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 8:13 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Anyone using Haskell?


> Another alternative for a modern programming language is SuperCollider, 
> which has features of both functional and object-oriented languages 
> (SmallTalk was a major inspiration) and has the distinct advantage of 
> being an integral part of an excellent music-making system.  Very nice to 
> work with.  Though I'm not giving up on Csound + Python (which I use in 
> the context of blue).
>
> - Dave
>
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>
>>
>> victor wrote:
>>> I'm not too convinced by all the talk on pure functional languages.
>>> My problem with Haskell is that the syntax is so foreign that it is hard
>>> to get going.
>>
>> I can sympathize... I've just spent the last three days learning Haskell 
>> and I'm still having trouble doing the simplest things. It's quite 
>> different than C and Python, but my understanding is that once you get 
>> going, it is one of the fastest/easiest language to code in.
>>
>> One of my goals in life is to make music, but I also have the goal of 
>> continuously improving the way I do things. Haskell represents a huge 
>> improvement over Python for music applications (other than signal 
>> processing), plus I'm a computer scientist at heart, so I would rather 
>> learn something new than keep doing things the old way.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"
> 

Anthony Palomba a écrit :
> I am always looking for better ways to do things. I would be curious to
> know if anyone out there has had previous experiences with Common Music
> or Lisp and how this compares to other high level languages. This Haskel 
> looks
> intriguing, is there any compelling argument why I should use it versus 
> lisp?

I'm working mainly in Lisp and Smalltalk. In my view these langages, 
along with Python, Haskell, Ruby and others I don't have in mind at the 
moment, are all very good candidates for algorithmic composition. 
Exactly as Mike Gogins pointed out before, as far as musical composition 
is concerned the langage should not become the object of study; this 
should be music. So I would say: choose a langage you like, that's 
enough. Lisp, Smalltalk, Haskell, Python styles are wildly different, so 
it's likely that one of them will please you more than the others.

If you do like Lisp, I see no reason for you to switch to Haskell. Lisp 
comes in many flavors: you can leverage all Java libraries with Clojure, 
for music you have Common Music, CLM, Snd, Nyquist, you have Emacs Lisp 
"to bind them all" (+ Python, Haskell, Mathematica and virtually any 
other langage actually).

My current setup is Emacs + Squeak (Smalltalk). I went to Squeak not 
because of Smalltalk (although it is an amazingly beautiful langage IMO) 
but because of Morphic, its graphical framework. I guess if I could do 
everything in Lisp, I would.


my 2 cents...

Stef

Anthony Palomba wrote:
> I have recently taken up Common Music, a lisp based computer music 
> language...
>
> http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/#documentation
>
> I must say I like it a lot. It supports csound as well.
> I am still learning the details but it seems to have a good library
> for creating procedural structures. I like the idea of being able
> to prototype pieces with it.
> ...
> I am always looking for better ways to do things. I would be curious to
> know if anyone out there has had previous experiences with Common Music
> or Lisp and how this compares to other high level languages.

Hi Anthony,

I've been an on & off user of Common Music for some years. I'm not a 
programmer, so I don't have any useful advice re: the language itself, 
but I have done utility coding in C, x86 assembler, Lisp, and Tcl/Tk 
(sorry, no Python yet). CM can be considered a Lisp subset with a bunch 
of special operators and functions for creating musical material.

Btw, my C coding was not DSP or other realtime stuff. Mostly I wrote 
simple interactive generators for Csound instruments and scores, 
command-line stuff only, no UI programming. Tk was useful for the few 
little things I wrote for myself that needed a GUI. These days I just 
leave it all to the pros. ;-)

As a musician I prefer Common Music for music programming. It's the only 
language in which I've maintained any ability, excepting Csound of course.

Best,

dp

I don't think this is done yet, I think it just calls the csound command
line. Are there any other lisp environments that access the Csound5 API?


Anthony



Victor.Lazzarini wrote:
> 
> In fact Rick Taube was working on a link to Csound5 at the
> API level for Grace. Not sure he's released it yet.
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Anyone-using-Haskell--tp22651085p22690578.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

apalomba a écrit :
> I don't think this is done yet, I think it just calls the csound command
> line. Are there any other lisp environments that access the Csound5 API?

Clojure can do this transparently by importing the API for Java. I just 
experimented  this last week and it works like a charm.

code snippets:

(import
  '(csnd Csound CsoundPerformanceThread) .....

..... (when (and
              (not @perf-thread)
              (= 0 (.Compile csound csd-file "-dodac")))
          (dosync
            (ref-set perf-thread
              (CsoundPerformanceThread. csound)))
          (.Play @perf-thread) .....


this will be demonstrated in the next Surmulot pre-release


Stef

There also used to be a wrapper for CLisp, but I am not sure of
its status.

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stéphane Rollandin" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:09 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone using Haskell?


> apalomba a écrit :
>> I don't think this is done yet, I think it just calls the csound command
>> line. Are there any other lisp environments that access the Csound5 API?
>
> Clojure can do this transparently by importing the API for Java. I just 
> experimented  this last week and it works like a charm.
>
> code snippets:
>
> (import
>  '(csnd Csound CsoundPerformanceThread) .....
>
> ..... (when (and
>              (not @perf-thread)
>              (= 0 (.Compile csound csd-file "-dodac")))
>          (dosync
>            (ref-set perf-thread
>              (CsoundPerformanceThread. csound)))
>          (.Play @perf-thread) .....
>
>
> this will be demonstrated in the next Surmulot pre-release
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

Erik de Castro Lopo a e'crit :
> Michael P Mossey wrote:
>
>   
>> I just discovered Haskell,
>>     
>
> I've been using Ocaml (another strict statically typed functional
> language) for nearly 5 years and a couple of months ago picked up
> Haskell which I think is actually even better.
>
> Before picking up Ocaml I had used Python for a couple of years
> but I feel with Ocaml and Haskell I get similar levels of productivity
> to python, but with significantly improved performance and even
> more importantly, siginificantly fewer run time bugs. Nowadays
> I rarely use Python  for anything longer than 100 lines of code.
>
> Erik
>   
I've been playing with Ocaml during the last summer. I'd say that the 
learning curve is rather steep in the beginning, but once I've got 
through this first step, I rather liked it. If you're used to math 
expressions and if you have this way of thinking then it's worth 
learning Ocaml.

Anyway I began to write a wrapper to use the csound API from Ocaml. It's 
not finished yet but it works. The following functions are already 
implemented :

csoundCreate
csoundPreCompile
csoundDestroy
csoundGetVersion
csoundGetAPIVersion
csoundGetEnv
csoundSetGlobalEnv

csoundCompile
csoundPerform
csoundPerformKsmps
csoundPerformKsmpsAbsolute
csoundPerformBuffer
csoundStop
csoundCleanup
csoundReset

csoundGetSr
csoundGetKr
csoundGetKsmps
csoundGetNchnls
csoundGet0dBFS
csoundGetStrVarMaxLen
csoundGetSampleFormat
csoundGetSampleSize
csoundGetInputBufferSize
csoundGetOutputBufferSize
csoundGetOutputFileName
csoundSetHostImplementedAudioIO

csoundGetScoreTime

csoundIsScorePending
csoundSetScorePending
csoundGetScoreOffsetSeconds
csoundSetScoreOffsetSeconds
csoundRewindScore

csoundGetMessageLevel
csoundSetMessageLevel
csoundInputMessage
csoundKeyPress

csoundScoreEvent

csoundSetIsGraphable

csoundGetDebug
csoundSetDebug
csoundTableLength
csoundTableGet
csoundTableSet

and the class csoundPerformanceThread, implemented as an Ocaml class.

I wrote the wrapper by hand because I don't like the way swig produces 
Ocaml bindings.

I don't have much time at the moment to finish this work but I can write 
a little notice on my personnal web site and give some examples.

Please let me know if people are interested.

Francois Pinot