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 need to run anything with Common Music 2, you can still get it to
work...with incudine <https://incudine.sourceforge.net/>! I can also
confirm, as someone who learned lisp with cm-incudine, that Taube's book
"Notes from the Metalevel" works with cm-incudine, thanks to Orm
Finnendahl's help. I use the cm-incudine system for my own endeavors,
like this piece <https://youtu.be/i2BiwwZGtaA?si=24nDxuUqoMETOvr0>
(hopefully it's okay to show a piece, not trying to advertise).
Check out this link: https://github.com/ormf/cm-incudine to learn more.
Cm-incudine relies heavily on Jack, so using it on Linux works the best,
but I've gotten it to work on Macos before at work.
I also wrote an installer for it for Arch Linux distros and a docker
image that can work on any system that docker will run on, without the
realtime audio support of course:
https://github.com/brandflake11/install-cm-incudine
https://github.com/brandflake11/cm-incudine-docker
Brandon Hale
On 11/9/23 9:49 AM, Rochus Keller wrote:
@ 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.
_______________________________________________
Cmdist mailing list
[email protected]
https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
_______________________________________________
Cmdist mailing list
[email protected]
https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
