Hi Bernardo,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Bernardo Barros wrote: > The whole idea of writing dsp algorithms directly in haskell is very > interesting. I think it would be much more intuitive to extend synthesis > systems like this. That's what I hope for. Currently there still some low-level clutter around. > But there are so many good options like supercollider (and hsc3 for > instance), that it is very discouraging using a less efficient system > for real-time. > > You told you could not do much complex synthesis with your system, Did I tell this? What I wanted to express was, that latency and complexity of sounds are two separate issues. I can't reduce latency by reducing complexity. But I can handle complex sounds at the same latency as simple sounds. > is this because you don't have a bigger block size? I can freely choose the block size. > Or Haskell garbage collector? What is your strategy in this respect? When I had a problem with the garbage collector I had actually always a problem with a space leak. I am now on a good way to eliminate them using arrows instead of lazy lists. However I find programming this way more complicated. > There are other systems trying to make decent DSP performance with > languages other then C. The second version of JSyn is all written in > pure Java, not c like the first version. That is good! The same language > for high and low level work, Yes, that's I achieve with LLVM and Haskell, too. _______________________________________________ haskell-art mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
