I agree about frontends.

I have used Tordini's Csedit with all versions of Csound4 and at least 3
Csound5's (all Windows) - many of them simultaneously. I had seven going at
once at one point.

To run .csd's, all I needed to do was change .

Art Hunkins

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Kozar" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Cs4 vs. Cs5 (was: 4.23 Manual)


> I would think that most programs that were simply frontends to the
> command-line Csound 4 should work fine with Csound 5 as well.  Is there
some
> problem with using existing versions of Cecilia with Csound 5?  blue
works,
> as should many of the old Windows and Linux front ends, I think.
>
> Certainly, if you are accustomed to MacCsound or CsoundAV then you will
> probably want to wait for them to be updated.  But AFAIK, there are good
GUI
> front ends for Csound 5 -- they may not use the API yet, but that does not
> matter.
>
> I also do not see why Csound 5 cannot be used with the same "simplicity"
as
> (Canonical) Csound 4.  If you ignore the API, the language wrappers, and
the
> many other new features that allow Csound 5 to interact with other
software,
> then you still have a basic Csound 5 executable in all of its "simplicity"
> that appears (to the user) to be not much different than (Canonical)
Csound
> 4.  The biggest difference that I can think of is several hundred new
> opcodes :)  I am guessing that the average user should spend no more than
> 2-3 hours installing and configuring Csound 5 and then they should be able
> to "forget about the details" just as before.
>
> Admittedly, there is a lot of traffic on the list related to solving
> installation problems with Csound 5.  However, many of the problems that I
> can recall seeing were because people were compiling their own Csound 5 or
> because they had previously installed a Csound 5 beta version.  Other
> problems relate to getting good real-time performance, but I think that
> Csound 5 is at least as good as Csound 4 in this regard.
>
> If you haven't tried Csound 5 yet because it "looks difficult or
unstable",
> please try downloading one of the binary packages for your platform.  You
> might be pleasantly surprised at just how simple and stable it is.  :)
>
> Anthony Kozar
> anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net
>
>
> David Akbari wrote on 4/26/06 9:05 AM:
>
> > IMHO, it just boils down to the fact that there are not enough
> > frontends like MacCsound, CsoundAV (Csound 4), Lettuce, Cabel et al
> > (Csound 5) that composers can use "right out of the box" by simply
> > clicking on a few key elements.
> [...]
> > Many of my friends and colleagues that use Csound composing to film use
> > specifically Cecilia since they don't even have to know Csound exists
> > and it "just works".
>
>
> >> Michael Rhoades wrote:
> >>> but I
> >>> am somewhat  disappointed that the concept of version 4 and its
> >>> predecessors
> >>> appears not to be being developed further. I love it for its utter
> >>> simplicity, elegance and usability. It has a few bugs that I would
> >>> liked to
> >>> have seen cleaned up and perhaps the code could have been optimized
> >>> for
> >>> speed. But otherwise it is a beautiful thing in its simplicity.
> >>> Admittedly,
> >>> I am rather overwhelmed as a composer, non-programmer, with Csound 5.
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk