>Are there other language like CSound. I only hear CSound or older versions in
>my universe.

super koll!dr
nyku!st.









s y m m e t r +3 [k 0 r ; u p t -1 p n
---- Ø f Ø Ø Ø 3 [p-un_kT-pr_o-T–k_oL]
3000f0/sba7t4wc=/kd.lime-dog.www//:pTTh

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, =cw4t7abs wrote:

> >Are there other language like CSound. I only hear CSound or older versions in
> >my universe.
> 
> super koll!dr
> nyku!st.
> 

I'm not so sure if you could say that Nyquist is very similar to Csound,
except that they are both languages for dealing with sound.

Larry

--  Larry Troxler  --  lt@westnet.com  --  Patterson, NY USA  --
  

i would be most interested, and appreciative in/to read/ing a superficial
comparison of csound, super collider, and nyquist.

tolve

>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, =cw4t7abs wrote:
>
>> >Are there other language like CSound. I only hear CSound or older
>>versions in
>> >my universe.
>>
>> super koll!dr
>> nyku!st.

Larry Troxler wrote:
>
>I'm not so sure if you could say that Nyquist is very similar to Csound,
>except that they are both languages for dealing with sound.

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, tolve wrote:

> i would be most interested, and appreciative in/to read/ing a superficial
> comparison of csound, super collider, and nyquist.

there was a suite of papers by Roger Dannenberg on one of the last
CMJs which basically compared nyquist and csound. Even though Dannenberg
is the creator of nyquist, the rigourous scientific approach of his
articles make them some very very useful reading on benchmarking
and comparing the two languages. I think this is better than anything
we could write, which would be simplistic for lack of time and clarity.
(Sorry about super collider, I don't even know what that is).

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.

thanks nicola. a good deal of this list is over my head. yet my intention
was to stir the pot a bit. have gleaned much information in other arenas as
participants beat each other black and blue over their own preferred tools
and methods of working. devious eh?

as the learning curve is quite steep with many of the programs mentioned
here, the stakes are high for anyone who needs to make some fast and dirty
decisions -just looking for highly opinionated answers to questions i
haven't thought of. now i know my fellow csounders are a passionate
people...

and if i may be so presumptuous, as you guys contemplate the rewriting of
code, perhaps it might be helpful to assess the working habits of the
broadest cross section of csounders. my guess is that somewhere some mere
user will make at least a single comment that will prove invaluable.

any letting of blood will be greatly appreciated!

ding.
tolve


>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, tolve wrote:
>
>> i would be most interested, and appreciative in/to read/ing a superficial
>> comparison of csound, super collider, and nyquist.
>
>there was a suite of papers by Roger Dannenberg on one of the last
>CMJs which basically compared nyquist and csound. Even though Dannenberg
>is the creator of nyquist, the rigourous scientific approach of his
>articles make them some very very useful reading on benchmarking
>and comparing the two languages. I think this is better than anything
>we could write, which would be simplistic for lack of time and clarity.
>(Sorry about super collider, I don't even know what that is).
>
>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.