|
@ Mike, Bil:
Thank you both very much for your quick response and the interesting information.
> Scheme is a somewhat easier language to learn and use ... I think the motivation was to simplify teaching computer music.
Ok, that seems like a decent motivation to switch to Scheme, since it is or was used in basic programming courses at universities anyway. But am I wrong to assume that this change created a rather incompatible version, i.e. all existing compositions based on CLOS, and the published papers and books about Common Music became virtually obsolete, and the way to compose with version 3 is significantly different than with version 2? Or do I have a misconception in this respect?
> if you are looking to use specifically Common Lisp for computer-based composition
Actually I currently rather try to find out which language is best suited to represent music on a symbolic, compositional (not physical or sound design) level. I'm not sure Common Lisp or Scheme are the best solution, neither Python. SAL is an interesting approach, but essentially Scheme with a kind of Pascal syntax as far as I understand it.
> so I wrote s7, starting with TinyScheme
Can I conclude from this that your change from Lisp to Scheme and finally your own interpreter was an important reason for Common Music to follow?
I had a look at S7 and its implementation which is impressive. Have you also experimented with threaded interpreters? Is the performance of the Scheme code an issue at all in this application domain?
Best
R.K. | 