on 2011-05-11 at 15:57 Stefano Bonetti wrote:

>Speaking about QuteCSound-CSound release synchronization,
>I generally have to download the latest QuteCSound
>separately after having installed CSound ... 
>and so I download it twice (note, this is not a problem, 
>it's just a consideration).

well, i think that reveals one of the problems of packaging csound with an
external application... unlike the "command line front-end", which is
integral part of the csound sources, and gets compiled with it.

BTW, i want to make clear that:

1) i understand victor's case for including a gui front-end;
2) i think qutecsound is a great app (although i don't use it myself).

it's only that i still think that including an external application was
not the best idea, be it qutecsound or any other external front-end.

BTW, i don't think qutecsound is quite the "straightforward editor +
performance system" it's supposed to be. as a relatively "old-time" csound
user, i rather find it a full-fledged IDE full of features (some of them
rather extraneous, more on this on another mail). 

not that my opinion matters much (i'm on linux and i build csound myself),
but if i were to vote, i think csound already has a *simple* gui
equivalent to the command-line: csound5gui. is it fully functional on all
platforms? beyond that, i think that users should choose their
editors-compilers.

best,

lj



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"

I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
the box.

If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
so I'm all in favor of making things easier.

Jake
-- 
The Csound Blog - http://csoundblog.com/
Slipmat - http://slipmat.noisepages.com/


On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, luis jure  wrote:
>
> on 2011-05-11 at 15:57 Stefano Bonetti wrote:
>
>>Speaking about QuteCSound-CSound release synchronization,
>>I generally have to download the latest QuteCSound
>>separately after having installed CSound ...
>>and so I download it twice (note, this is not a problem,
>>it's just a consideration).
>
> well, i think that reveals one of the problems of packaging csound with an
> external application... unlike the "command line front-end", which is
> integral part of the csound sources, and gets compiled with it.
>
> BTW, i want to make clear that:
>
> 1) i understand victor's case for including a gui front-end;
> 2) i think qutecsound is a great app (although i don't use it myself).
>
> it's only that i still think that including an external application was
> not the best idea, be it qutecsound or any other external front-end.
>
> BTW, i don't think qutecsound is quite the "straightforward editor +
> performance system" it's supposed to be. as a relatively "old-time" csound
> user, i rather find it a full-fledged IDE full of features (some of them
> rather extraneous, more on this on another mail).
>
> not that my opinion matters much (i'm on linux and i build csound myself),
> but if i were to vote, i think csound already has a *simple* gui
> equivalent to the command-line: csound5gui. is it fully functional on all
> platforms? beyond that, i think that users should choose their
> editors-compilers.
>
> best,
>
> lj
>
>
>
> 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"

> I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
> developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
> the box.

Thankfully we have several these days.

> If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
> others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
> which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are

My original proposal didn't suggest splitting packages so I don't
think that should be a problem.

> fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
> free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
> get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
> first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
> so I'm all in favor of making things easier.

Thankfully things are much better today! But if you ask me, and most
of my students they could be a lot easier.

Rory.


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"

I don't think there is enough reason or consensus to stop including  
QuteCsound with Csound. I don't think we will stop packaging and  
distributing the core system (my suggestion was just rhetorical, it  
would be silly to do so) and not including a GUI is not viable.

As for the people who like Csound5GUI: it's free software, you can get  
the old sources, maintain and distribute it. We decided to drop it  
because it was not a  good solution as far as a GUI for csound was  
concerned. It was a PITA to keep fixing it and it never worked well on  
all platforms. Thank god (i.e. Andres) for QuteCsound. It could do  
with a better name, though.

Victor

On 11 May 2011, at 16:46, Jacob Joaquin wrote:

> I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
> developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
> the box.
>
> If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
> others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
> which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
> fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
> free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
> get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
> first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
> so I'm all in favor of making things easier.
>
> Jake
> -- 
> The Csound Blog - http://csoundblog.com/
> Slipmat - http://slipmat.noisepages.com/
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, luis jure   
> wrote:
>>
>> on 2011-05-11 at 15:57 Stefano Bonetti wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking about QuteCSound-CSound release synchronization,
>>> I generally have to download the latest QuteCSound
>>> separately after having installed CSound ...
>>> and so I download it twice (note, this is not a problem,
>>> it's just a consideration).
>>
>> well, i think that reveals one of the problems of packaging csound  
>> with an
>> external application... unlike the "command line front-end", which is
>> integral part of the csound sources, and gets compiled with it.
>>
>> BTW, i want to make clear that:
>>
>> 1) i understand victor's case for including a gui front-end;
>> 2) i think qutecsound is a great app (although i don't use it  
>> myself).
>>
>> it's only that i still think that including an external application  
>> was
>> not the best idea, be it qutecsound or any other external front-end.
>>
>> BTW, i don't think qutecsound is quite the "straightforward editor +
>> performance system" it's supposed to be. as a relatively "old-time"  
>> csound
>> user, i rather find it a full-fledged IDE full of features (some of  
>> them
>> rather extraneous, more on this on another mail).
>>
>> not that my opinion matters much (i'm on linux and i build csound  
>> myself),
>> but if i were to vote, i think csound already has a *simple* gui
>> equivalent to the command-line: csound5gui. is it fully functional  
>> on all
>> platforms? beyond that, i think that users should choose their
>> editors-compilers.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> lj
>>
>>
>>
>> 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"
>

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie





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"

Quite. Or do I mean cute? Cootie?

----------------------------------------
> From: Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:34:10 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Some remarks on LAC
>
> I don't think there is enough reason or consensus to stop including
> QuteCsound with Csound. I don't think we will stop packaging and
> distributing the core system (my suggestion was just rhetorical, it
> would be silly to do so) and not including a GUI is not viable.
>
> As for the people who like Csound5GUI: it's free software, you can get
> the old sources, maintain and distribute it. We decided to drop it
> because it was not a good solution as far as a GUI for csound was
> concerned. It was a PITA to keep fixing it and it never worked well on
> all platforms. Thank god (i.e. Andres) for QuteCsound. It could do
> with a better name, though.
>
> Victor
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 16:46, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>
> > I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
> > developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
> > the box.
> >
> > If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
> > others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
> > which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
> > fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
> > free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
> > get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
> > first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
> > so I'm all in favor of making things easier.
> >
> > Jake
> > --
> > The Csound Blog - http://csoundblog.com/
> > Slipmat - http://slipmat.noisepages.com/
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, luis jure 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> on 2011-05-11 at 15:57 Stefano Bonetti wrote:
> >>
> >>> Speaking about QuteCSound-CSound release synchronization,
> >>> I generally have to download the latest QuteCSound
> >>> separately after having installed CSound ...
> >>> and so I download it twice (note, this is not a problem,
> >>> it's just a consideration).
> >>
> >> well, i think that reveals one of the problems of packaging csound
> >> with an
> >> external application... unlike the "command line front-end", which is
> >> integral part of the csound sources, and gets compiled with it.
> >>
> >> BTW, i want to make clear that:
> >>
> >> 1) i understand victor's case for including a gui front-end;
> >> 2) i think qutecsound is a great app (although i don't use it
> >> myself).
> >>
> >> it's only that i still think that including an external application
> >> was
> >> not the best idea, be it qutecsound or any other external front-end.
> >>
> >> BTW, i don't think qutecsound is quite the "straightforward editor +
> >> performance system" it's supposed to be. as a relatively "old-time"
> >> csound
> >> user, i rather find it a full-fledged IDE full of features (some of
> >> them
> >> rather extraneous, more on this on another mail).
> >>
> >> not that my opinion matters much (i'm on linux and i build csound
> >> myself),
> >> but if i were to vote, i think csound already has a *simple* gui
> >> equivalent to the command-line: csound5gui. is it fully functional
> >> on all
> >> platforms? beyond that, i think that users should choose their
> >> editors-compilers.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> lj
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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"
> >
>
> Dr Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"

CootieSound


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"

I do both - run Csound from the command line and sometimes from a Gui. 
In principle I think it is inappropriate as well as unnecessary  to 
assume anyone limits (or should limit) themselves to just one choice. 
This is software. Web pages can show a lot of stuff - and give clear 
descriptions of available choices.  People (who are likely to be 
interested in Csound at all) are smart.  SourceForge is already offering 
multiple choices. Download Csound (console-only) by itself. Or download 
a package integrated with the recommended front-end(s) of choice. Maybe 
even make the latter the "top" choice if that is felt to encourage new 
users. All it needs is one more option on the main SourceForge download 
page. How hard can that be?


Richard Dobson






On 11/05/2011 17:34, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
> I don't think there is enough reason or consensus to stop including
> QuteCsound with Csound. I don't think we will stop packaging and
> distributing the core system (my suggestion was just rhetorical, it
> would be silly to do so) and not including a GUI is not viable.
>
> As for the people who like Csound5GUI: it's free software, you can get
> the old sources, maintain and distribute it. We decided to drop it
> because it was not a good solution as far as a GUI for csound was
> concerned. It was a PITA to keep fixing it and it never worked well on
> all platforms. Thank god (i.e. Andres) for QuteCsound. It could do with
> a better name, though.
>
> Victor
>


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"

> In my opinion it would be best if GUI's were bundling a native Csound
> configuration.

That's what I do with Surmulot.

This would generally be made easier if:
1) no environment variables *at all* were needed to run Csound (all 
settings done via command-line options)
2) Csound was distributed (in parallel with the installer with 
QuteCsound, not replacing it) as a plain zip archive.

For Surmulot, I have to
1) have Emacs control its own version of the environment, with a way to 
switch back and forth from the bundled Csound and the system-wide 
Csound; although this works well, it does not allow the user to have 
different Csound versions installed at the same time system-wide
2) run the installer via a virtual proxy (Sandboxie) so that it doesn't 
mess up with my system, and then extract the files I'm interested in to 
assemble my bundled Csound.

These two points, 1) and 2), I have been raising them countless times 
for 5 or more years on this list, with zero feedback. It's either too 
difficult to do, or nobody cares.

Here ends the complaint of the solitary front-end developer.


Stef


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"

Hi Stef,

I think the zip file idea is good, but only for Windows. OS X and
Linux are completely different. I think if you were to prepare the
zip, there would be no objection to host it on sourceforge. I suspect
it's more a matter of time, resources and priorities.

Cheers,
Andres

2011/5/11 Stéphane Rollandin :
>> In my opinion it would be best if GUI's were bundling a native Csound
>> configuration.
>
> That's what I do with Surmulot.
>
> This would generally be made easier if:
> 1) no environment variables *at all* were needed to run Csound (all settings
> done via command-line options)
> 2) Csound was distributed (in parallel with the installer with QuteCsound,
> not replacing it) as a plain zip archive.
>
> For Surmulot, I have to
> 1) have Emacs control its own version of the environment, with a way to
> switch back and forth from the bundled Csound and the system-wide Csound;
> although this works well, it does not allow the user to have different
> Csound versions installed at the same time system-wide
> 2) run the installer via a virtual proxy (Sandboxie) so that it doesn't mess
> up with my system, and then extract the files I'm interested in to assemble
> my bundled Csound.
>
> These two points, 1) and 2), I have been raising them countless times for 5
> or more years on this list, with zero feedback. It's either too difficult to
> do, or nobody cares.
>
> Here ends the complaint of the solitary front-end developer.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
> 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"

No environment variables at all sounds good to me. I am curious to know why they are currently required. I follow the developers thread now, but no doubt this was discussed before I started doing so.
Brian

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:36:15 +0200
> From: lecteur@zogotounga.net
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Some remarks on LAC
>
> > In my opinion it would be best if GUI's were bundling a native Csound
> > configuration.
>
> That's what I do with Surmulot.
>
> This would generally be made easier if:
> 1) no environment variables *at all* were needed to run Csound (all
> settings done via command-line options)
> 2) Csound was distributed (in parallel with the installer with
> QuteCsound, not replacing it) as a plain zip archive.
>
> For Surmulot, I have to
> 1) have Emacs control its own version of the environment, with a way to
> switch back and forth from the bundled Csound and the system-wide
> Csound; although this works well, it does not allow the user to have
> different Csound versions installed at the same time system-wide
> 2) run the installer via a virtual proxy (Sandboxie) so that it doesn't
> mess up with my system, and then extract the files I'm interested in to
> assemble my bundled Csound.
>
> These two points, 1) and 2), I have been raising them countless times
> for 5 or more years on this list, with zero feedback. It's either too
> difficult to do, or nobody cares.
>
> Here ends the complaint of the solitary front-end developer.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
> 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"

Abolishing environmental variable is something we discussed at LAC.
IIRC most people were in favour of it.

On 11 May 2011 19:40, Brian Wong  wrote:
>
> No environment variables at all sounds good to me. I am curious to know why they are currently required. I follow the developers thread now, but no doubt this was discussed before I started doing so.
> Brian
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:36:15 +0200
>> From: lecteur@zogotounga.net
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Some remarks on LAC
>>
>> > In my opinion it would be best if GUI's were bundling a native Csound
>> > configuration.
>>
>> That's what I do with Surmulot.
>>
>> This would generally be made easier if:
>> 1) no environment variables *at all* were needed to run Csound (all
>> settings done via command-line options)
>> 2) Csound was distributed (in parallel with the installer with
>> QuteCsound, not replacing it) as a plain zip archive.
>>
>> For Surmulot, I have to
>> 1) have Emacs control its own version of the environment, with a way to
>> switch back and forth from the bundled Csound and the system-wide
>> Csound; although this works well, it does not allow the user to have
>> different Csound versions installed at the same time system-wide
>> 2) run the installer via a virtual proxy (Sandboxie) so that it doesn't
>> mess up with my system, and then extract the files I'm interested in to
>> assemble my bundled Csound.
>>
>> These two points, 1) and 2), I have been raising them countless times
>> for 5 or more years on this list, with zero feedback. It's either too
>> difficult to do, or nobody cares.
>>
>> Here ends the complaint of the solitary front-end developer.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> 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"
>
>


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"

> I think if you were to prepare the
> zip, there would be no objection to host it on sourceforge.

Well, I would like to have a zip; I am not interesting in maintaining 
and providing it. What I provide is a front-end with its own bundled Csound.

Stef


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"

> I am not interesting

although that's true, I meant *interested* :)

Stef


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"

on 2011-05-11 at 17:34 Victor Lazzarini wrote:

>As for the people who like Csound5GUI: it's free software, you can get  
>the old sources, maintain and distribute it. We decided to drop it  
>because it was not a  good solution as far as a GUI for csound was  
>concerned. It was a PITA to keep fixing it and it never worked well on  
>all platforms. 


well, that's a pity, indeed. i'm not a developer myself, so i can't
comment on that. but i always thought that a simple gui like csound5gui is
what csound should have, a graphical equivalent of the command line.

but as you say, there is no agreement on this matter, i was just sharing
my opinion, it doesn't affect me one way or the other. 

a big thank you to you, john, andrés, mike, steven, vercoe, the late max
mathews and all the people that have contributed for decades to develop
this incredibly powerful tools.


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"

Two points -
First, although I like a simple Gui (like the 
several-times-mentioned csound5gui), I don't like the idea of 
'dumbing down' csound for the ultra-newbie who knows little or 
nothing about how sound synthesis is done in general, and 
especially digital sound synthesis.  For me, that is what those 
other packages are for..and what I have used and continue to use 
them for.
Second, I agree that things could and should be easier for the 
newbies who finally become unsatisfied with 'those other guys', 
and are curious to down to the meat and bones of what synthesis 
is all about.  To that end, I think a GUI with COPIOUS 
documentation and examples, that transitions them from 'click 
this button for a cool string sound' to 'here's how to create a 
sawtooth wave that you can use to make a cool string sound by 
doing this'.  The existing tutorials, in total, almost achieve 
this, but it's taken me nearly four years to really work with 
them to reach the level of understanding I'm talking about.  And 
my background goes back to the MiniMoog and Arp Odyssey and the 
C=64.  Quite frankly, although having sliders, knobs, etc. to 
try out a new patch can be nice, it's really in the code that 
the magic happens..and so far, the only way I've achieved any 
understanding is to dissect the many examples that come with the 
distribution (4.10 was my first contact with csound).
So..I guess I'm in the camp that says 'keep it Very Simple', 
with the proviso that adequate, meaningful, usable, instruments 
(WELL DOCUMENTED!!!) are provided.

(sorry..I think that's a little more than 2 cents worth.)
Bob Foose

On 13:59, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
> I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
> developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
> the box.
>
> If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
> others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
> which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
> fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
> free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
> get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
> first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
> so I'm all in favor of making things easier.
>
> Jake


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"

Good point..but only for advanced users.  Beginners are likely 
to only be using the opcodes found in the tutorials at 
first..and these have been essentially the same since 4.08 (or 
earlier).  Also, being more advanced in their use and 
understanding, long-time users will be aware of the situation 
and of the remedies for it.
Bob Foose

On 13:59, Conor Dempsey wrote:
> In my opinion it would be best if GUI's were bundling a native
> Csound configuration.
> This would mean that the integrity of the individual systems
> could be maintained across releases of Csound.
> Unfortunately it means that GUI (A) could be using Csound
> version 5 and GUI (B) could be on Csound 6.. which is
> always an issue.
>
> It would be ideal if GUIs were able to update themselves to the
> latest version of Csound, but that is up to the GUI developers.
> Btw....most gui libraries have a console widget.. so even if you
> use a GUI .. the cli doesn't have to be too far away
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Richard Dobson
>  > wrote:
>
>     I do both - run Csound from the command line and sometimes
>     from a Gui. In principle I think it is inappropriate as well
>     as unnecessary  to assume anyone limits (or should limit)
>     themselves to just one choice. This is software. Web pages
>     can show a lot of stuff - and give clear descriptions of
>     available choices.  People (who are likely to be interested
>     in Csound at all) are smart.  SourceForge is already
>     offering multiple choices. Download Csound (console-only) by
>     itself. Or download a package integrated with the
>     recommended front-end(s) of choice. Maybe even make the
>     latter the "top" choice if that is felt to encourage new
>     users. All it needs is one more option on the main
>     SourceForge download page. How hard can that be?
>
>
>     Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 11/05/2011 17:34, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>
>         I don't think there is enough reason or consensus to
>         stop including
>         QuteCsound with Csound. I don't think we will stop
>         packaging and
>         distributing the core system (my suggestion was just
>         rhetorical, it
>         would be silly to do so) and not including a GUI is not
>         viable.
>
>         As for the people who like Csound5GUI: it's free
>         software, you can get
>         the old sources, maintain and distribute it. We decided
>         to drop it
>         because it was not a good solution as far as a GUI for
>         csound was
>         concerned. It was a PITA to keep fixing it and it never
>         worked well on
>         all platforms. Thank god (i.e. Andres) for QuteCsound.
>         It could do with
>         a better name, though.
>
>         Victor
>
>
>
>     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"
>
>
>
>
> --
> music moves more than the maker


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"

what you say about an introductional tutorial was more or less the goal
of the "Getting Started" which is the first item in the QuteCsound
examples menu (written by Alex Hofmann in contact with Andrés and me).
and i'd like to point to the floss manual about csound which is a
general introduction in "plain" csound:
www.flossmanuals.net/csound/index

	joachim

Am 13.05.2011 00:44, schrieb Robert or Gretchen Foose:
> Two points -
> First, although I like a simple Gui (like the several-times-mentioned
> csound5gui), I don't like the idea of 'dumbing down' csound for the
> ultra-newbie who knows little or nothing about how sound synthesis is
> done in general, and especially digital sound synthesis.  For me, that
> is what those other packages are for..and what I have used and continue
> to use them for.
> Second, I agree that things could and should be easier for the newbies
> who finally become unsatisfied with 'those other guys', and are curious
> to down to the meat and bones of what synthesis is all about.  To that
> end, I think a GUI with COPIOUS documentation and examples, that
> transitions them from 'click this button for a cool string sound' to
> 'here's how to create a sawtooth wave that you can use to make a cool
> string sound by doing this'.  The existing tutorials, in total, almost
> achieve this, but it's taken me nearly four years to really work with
> them to reach the level of understanding I'm talking about.  And my
> background goes back to the MiniMoog and Arp Odyssey and the C=64. 
> Quite frankly, although having sliders, knobs, etc. to try out a new
> patch can be nice, it's really in the code that the magic happens..and
> so far, the only way I've achieved any understanding is to dissect the
> many examples that come with the distribution (4.10 was my first contact
> with csound).
> So..I guess I'm in the camp that says 'keep it Very Simple', with the
> proviso that adequate, meaningful, usable, instruments (WELL
> DOCUMENTED!!!) are provided.
> 
> (sorry..I think that's a little more than 2 cents worth.)
> Bob Foose
> 
> On 13:59, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>> I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
>> developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
>> the box.
>>
>> If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
>> others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
>> which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
>> fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
>> free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
>> get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
>> first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
>> so I'm all in favor of making things easier.
>>
>> Jake
> 
> 
> 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"

I haven't looked at the 'Getting Started' toot. but you're 
right, the floss manuals look really promising as a kick-off 
point for an artist wanting to move away from the relatively 
'canned' sounds of many of the other synthesis programs that 
abound.  I've only just begun skimming them, and already have 
found some interesting ideas to pursue. What I especially like 
is the amount of explanation that accompanies them.  The 
canonical manual is great for showing you what to do with an 
opcode, but is less clear about why you'd want to use it in the 
first place. More of this kind of information is what I think 
the Csound docs and toots need to be most helpful to new users. 
  What I'm thinking of is something like a cross between Kim 
Cascone's article on bluecube, and Allan Schindler's Eastman 
tutorial, but both updated to reflect current practice of the 
experienced users.  And of course, to say it again, heavily 
documented csd's of music posted would be the best help.  Having 
heard an interesting piece, a new user can learn a lot from 
seeing how it was created, but undocumented code can be 
overwhelming at first, leading to the 'csound is just to hard to 
learn to bother with it' syndrome.
Bob

On 13:59, joachim heintz wrote:
> what you say about an introductional tutorial was more or less the goal
> of the "Getting Started" which is the first item in the QuteCsound
> examples menu (written by Alex Hofmann in contact with Andrés and me).
> and i'd like to point to the floss manual about csound which is a
> general introduction in "plain" csound:
> www.flossmanuals.net/csound/index
>
> 	joachim
>
> Am 13.05.2011 00:44, schrieb Robert or Gretchen Foose:
>> Two points -
>> First, although I like a simple Gui (like the several-times-mentioned
>> csound5gui), I don't like the idea of 'dumbing down' csound for the
>> ultra-newbie who knows little or nothing about how sound synthesis is
>> done in general, and especially digital sound synthesis.  For me, that
>> is what those other packages are for..and what I have used and continue
>> to use them for.
>> Second, I agree that things could and should be easier for the newbies
>> who finally become unsatisfied with 'those other guys', and are curious
>> to down to the meat and bones of what synthesis is all about.  To that
>> end, I think a GUI with COPIOUS documentation and examples, that
>> transitions them from 'click this button for a cool string sound' to
>> 'here's how to create a sawtooth wave that you can use to make a cool
>> string sound by doing this'.  The existing tutorials, in total, almost
>> achieve this, but it's taken me nearly four years to really work with
>> them to reach the level of understanding I'm talking about.  And my
>> background goes back to the MiniMoog and Arp Odyssey and the C=64.
>> Quite frankly, although having sliders, knobs, etc. to try out a new
>> patch can be nice, it's really in the code that the magic happens..and
>> so far, the only way I've achieved any understanding is to dissect the
>> many examples that come with the distribution (4.10 was my first contact
>> with csound).
>> So..I guess I'm in the camp that says 'keep it Very Simple', with the
>> proviso that adequate, meaningful, usable, instruments (WELL
>> DOCUMENTED!!!) are provided.
>>
>> (sorry..I think that's a little more than 2 cents worth.)
>> Bob Foose
>>
>> On 13:59, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>>> I don't use QuteCsound, but I think it's important to have well
>>> developed cross-platform GUI that comes with examples that play out of
>>> the box.
>>>
>>> If you start splitting packages, where some come with a GUI, and
>>> others do not, then you run the risk of confusing potential new users,
>>> which can lead to turning them off from ever trying. People are
>>> fickle, and it isn't the mid-nineties anymore where if you wanted a
>>> free modular, you had very few choices, thus you put in the time to
>>> get a program like Csound running; It took me 6 hours to compile my
>>> first sine wave in 1996. Csound now competes with 100s of soft synths,
>>> so I'm all in favor of making things easier.
>>>
>>> Jake
>>
>>
>> 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"