On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:10:53AM -0500, plutek wrote: > > interesting ideas, and i may take a look at drFlux. still, i guess my basic > question is why fluxus (this nice, light, and nimble tool) needs the whole > big machinery of racket before we can even compile it...
Well, we are using libraries for a lot of stuff. No need to re-invent the wheel on topics like FFT, playing samples, loading and writing images, dealing with OSC and MIDI.... and Racket is a nice Scheme. There are smaller Scheme's (ok, most are, I think) but this way we have easy access to a whole series of powerful libraries. Racket is a huge system and building it takes ages, but the core part that we need while running is not that big, from there on you can require the extra bits that you need (classes can come in handy, for example). Architecturally speaking it's not a bad choice at all but indeed getting it all to work can be tricky and probably is keeping back adoption of FLuxus. Speaking purely for myself I can say that I found that process educational and worthwhile. That's not to say I don't still occasionally curse at it all. Then again; I can't complain because I myself manoeuvred myself into a position tailor made for much rewarding fun and a lot of cursing by poking at the source :-). Stick with it. it'll be fun! Kas.
