Frank Brickle wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Aaron Isaksen wrote:
> 
> > How about a Perl interface to CM?
> > ...
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Larry Troxler wrote:
> >
> > > Why not just use CM (if you don't mind using Lisp instead of perl).
> > >
> > > It already is OO, has semantics for manipulating patterns of events, which
> > > can be nested, etc, and allows multiple output modes
> > > (csound,CLM,MIDI,etc.).
> 
> ...recalling the remark by Stephen Daedalus about
> trading an absurdity that is logical and consistent
> for one that is illogical and inconsistent...

My music is illogical and inconsistent, I see no reason for my
programming language to be any different. :)

I have no interest in a Lisp-vs.-Perl argument. Scheme is already on my
list of languages to learn, but I feel like I've already done too much
eclectic information-gathering this year... last January I knew a few
very simple shell-scripting techniques, didn't even know HTML,
remembered just enough BASIC from elementary school to be able to say
"10 PRINT 20 ; 20 GOTO 10"... in the spring I over-ambitiously started
learning C, and actually wrote a few useful utilities (that I really
use!), in the summer I quickly gulped down simple HTML, then learned
enough nroff to write man-pages, then in early Fall I started on Perl
and so far I really, really like Perl. At this point I feel like I will
benefit a lot more from doing some serious work in one language I
already understand and like, rather than learning another radically
different one.

> One towering advantage of CM (and Lisp) is that,
> unlike Perl, it is not write-only ;-)

Which means what? I'm not being grumpy, I honestly don't know what this
means.

PW

p.s. if anybody grumbles that I've lumped in markup languages with
programming languages... aw, gimme a break.