David Schuyeteneer wrote:
> 
> A new sound language should be invented with syntax like this :
> 
> I honestly have to admit that inspiration comes from "POVRAY", wich can be
> considered
> as the visual equivalent of Csound...It is a raytracer that describes a 3D
> scene the same way
> Csound does with sound.
> 
> I think Csound lacks in clarity and structure. Disadvantages of Csound
> structure :
> -needs everything to be completed on one line
> -absence of parentheses,brackets,vector-style modifications
> -opcodes are too short abrieviated...
> - blah-blah..
> - blah...
> - bl..
> - b..
> - ..
> - ..............
	We should remember as we discuss csound language modifications that there is
no need to write a language that is just like C or C++.  This is because those
languages already exist, and it is certainly possible and not terribly
difficult to write your music directly using a C++ compiler and a set of
standard sound and file i/o classes.  I mention this because this is how I
often work myself.
	The object of csound should be to provide something different from this. 
Currently, csound offers a compact (though recently bulging) dictionary and a
straight-forward (or limited) syntax.  This makes it easier to learn than C. 
Also, cross-platform support that is easier than C or C++.
	This discussion began (I think) as more about the internals of csound, rather
than the structure of the orc or sco.  The internals ARE a hodge-podge, but
this is primarily of concern to those who support the code.  If those people
want to clean it up, either through DLL's or C++ or whatever, and they have
the time and nerve, then do it.  But the point of that would be to PRESERVE
the way users interact with csound, not to change it.
	When you discuss significant changes to the syntax of csound, there is very
little reason to call it csound or start from the csound source (because the
source is not orderly or intelligible).  Instead, you are talking about making
a new language.  This is O.K., but should not be confused with upgrading
csound.  (Many of us have done just that - SAOL is the MIT version, GrainWave
is my Mac version, and so on...).  There should be lots of tools available,
since not every tool fits every purpose.
	I think that anything that makes maintaining csound easier is a good thing. 
But a new language is not maintenance, it is something new and separate, and
should be considered as such.
-- 
Mike Berry
mikeb@nmol.com
http://www.nmol.com/users/mikeb

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Mike Berry wrote:

[snip]
> David Schuyeteneer wrote:
> > 
> > A new sound language should be invented with syntax like this :
[snip]
> 	When you discuss significant changes to the syntax of csound, there is very
> little reason to call it csound or start from the csound source (because the
> source is not orderly or intelligible).  Instead, you are talking about making
> a new language.  This is O.K., but should not be confused with upgrading
> csound.  (Many of us have done just that - SAOL is the MIT version, GrainWave
> is my Mac version, and so on...).  There should be lots of tools available,
> since not every tool fits every purpose.
> 	I think that anything that makes maintaining csound easier is a good thing. 
> But a new language is not maintenance, it is something new and separate, and
> should be considered as such.

I think that *this* is really so clear! This is what I meant to say in
my last postings on the subject. The idea to have a more mantainable source
in order to make some useful *extensions* does not imply the idea of
speaking entirely different tongues. It's not that we don't like the
other tongues, but csound is understood by csounders and this is an
important value to be preserved.

nicb

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Bernardini
E-mail: nicb@axnet.it
 
Re graphics: A picture is worth 10K words -- but only those to describe
the picture.  Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described
with pictures.