Let me clarify my position:

Opcodes should be enriched with new features whenever feasible, in contrast 
to adding new opcodes. Adding features must, of course, retain backward 
compatibility - which means making such features optional.

This position applies to situations where related opcodes already exist. It 
will encourage intelligibility and comprehension - to balance the obvious 
"richness" of Csound which can easily overwhelm (me, at least).

I too will refrain from further "debate" on this topic.

Art Hunkins
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Richard Boulanger" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:59 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: massignLayer opcode Needed


>I feel we are heading for a Fox News - MSNBC "debate" here... and I am 
>stopping now
>
> but...
>
> I never appreciated the negativity of the criticisms about "opcode- bloat"
>
> Pushing back on adding new opcodes would be like accusing someone 
> blogging about their dream of
> turning  Csound into SuperCollider, CommonMusic, or PyCsound ( ;-} ) - 
> all of which, by the way, inspire me as
> well;  I don't ever want to complain about  adding yet another 
> "unnecessary" front-end or score-generator/processor,
> or more OSC/MIDI/JACK/Max/LIVE/VST/AU/WIIMOTE/ETC support either  because 
> ALL of these directions and additions,
> these alternative approaches.... are what make Csound so important and 
> amazing.
>
> Under the umbrella of Csound we show, support and champion so many 
> perspectives and approaches to making music.
> I think this is one of our best and maybe one of our most important  joint 
> international contributions to the field.
>
> I am always excited by "more" opcodes and "new" opcodes.
>
> I am always inspired by new front-ends.
>
> I am always thrilled and blow away by "new" approaches.
>
> and...
>
> I love to "brag" in my classes and to beginners about how many  "modules" 
> we have in "our" massive free cross-platform synthesizer.
>
> And... I am always thrilled to discover new features and functionality 
> and new ways the people are using these new possibilities to make  music 
> and to connect
> with commercial production tools.
>
> We need to keep looking at the solutions of others and the way that 
> people and programs work - and making sure that Csound supports as  many 
> of these modalities and aesthetics as we can.
>
> Dr. B.
>
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I'm against opcode bloat.
>>
>> I agree with the sentiment, though that ship sailed long ago.
>> According to "csound --list-opcodes", there are 1395 opcodes.
>> Unfortunately, I don't think there is a solution for opcode bloat. At
>> least not for Csound 5.  Perhaps Csound 6 could have a system for
>> organizing opcodes into libraries.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jake
>> -- 
>> The Csound Blog - http://csound.noisepages.com/
>> Slipmat - http://slipmat.noisepages.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"
> 



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"