| Larry Troxler wrote:
>
> Why not just use CM (if you don't mind using Lisp instead of perl).
You, Frank, and Aaron all make some good points, but I anticipated this
question in my original post. To quote myself:
> --I don't know Lisp at all.
> --I like Perl.
> --Lots of other people like Perl and don't know Lisp.
> --Some of those people might be fellow Csounders.
> --There is room for many ways to generate Csound scores... and this
> might be a very useful addition to the existing tools (CM, Cscore, SCOT,
> cecilia & cybil, SILENCE, HPKComposer, Midi2CS, ermmm... what else?)
(I forgot TkScore!)
And I will add a couple more reasons:
--I think it will be fun to do.
--I'm considering changing what I do for a living, and "I've written a
Perl module" might be more impressive on a resume than "I know how to
use Common Music" ... depends on the employer, I guess! Oh, forget it,
that's a silly reason to do this project.
> [Common Music] already is OO, has semantics for manipulating patterns of events, which
> can be nested, etc, and allows multiple output modes
> (csound,CLM,MIDI,etc.).
Yes, and in fact, to people who are impatient to get to work now, and/or
don't know Perl already, and/or need a multi-output-mode solution
anytime soon, and/or already have some knowledge of Lisp, I would
encourage them to investigate CM. I included a pointer to the CM home
page in my original post for that reason. It is quite possible that my
project will never become quite so ambitious as CM already is today. And
as I said, it is quite possible that I myself will eventually check out
CM. Maybe I will switch to CLM entirely and forget about Csound
permanently. But I still think a Perl/Csound-score programming library
would be useful for many purposes, and hopefully easy to use.
--PW
|