On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:59:23PM +0100, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] synthesizers / drums / effects ..etc
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
You could write a suite of objects instead of one monolithic one with 13 inlets and 42 arguments. Then you get the advantages of code reuse without having to mess with subpatches.
Yeah, but what happens in this case is that this suite of abstractions would have one or two objects each (plus [inlet]s and [outlet]s). I'm talking about the case when most of the patching may count as configuration.
So learn LISP and then abandon yr attachment to the Von Neumann architecture.
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:59:23PM +0100, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
You could write a suite of objects instead of one monolithic one with 13 inlets and 42 arguments. Then you get the advantages of code reuse without having to mess with subpatches.
Yeah, but what happens in this case is that this suite of abstractions would have one or two objects each (plus [inlet]s and [outlet]s). I'm talking about the case when most of the patching may count as configuration.
So learn LISP and then abandon yr attachment to the Von Neumann architecture.
Questions:
what's the link between LISP and abandoning vonNeumann arch ?
what's the link between what you are replying to and abandoning
vonNeumann arch ?
Because I don't have a clue. :-)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:11:15AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:59:23PM +0100, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
You could write a suite of objects instead of one monolithic one with 13 inlets and 42 arguments. Then you get the advantages of code reuse without having to mess with subpatches.
Yeah, but what happens in this case is that this suite of abstractions would have one or two objects each (plus [inlet]s and [outlet]s). I'm talking about the case when most of the patching may count as configuration.
So learn LISP and then abandon yr attachment to the Von Neumann architecture.
Questions:
- what's the link between LISP and abandoning vonNeumann arch ?
That architecture separates storage and processor. LISP blurs the line between the data and the algorithm.
- what's the link between what you are replying to and abandoning
vonNeumann arch ?
You indicate that what you want is more 'meta' and less specific.
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Chris McCormick wrote:
- what's the link between LISP and abandoning vonNeumann arch ?
That architecture separates storage and processor. LISP blurs the line between the data and the algorithm.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on vonNeumann arch reads:
« The term von Neumann architecture refers to a computer design model that uses a single storage structure to hold both instructions and data. » -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture
IMHO (and not in that webpage), the blurring of the line between data and algorithm dates back to the 1830's, when Charles Babbage and Ada Byron were busy inventing that concept that we now call software, under the name "the analytical machine". The revolutionary idea was that programs needed not be made of hardware (cogwheels or relays) anymore -- they could be made of pure information, which they called "machine language".
Byron also came with that idea that programs would be easier to reuse and had that literary nature so that collections of reusable procedures would be called "libraries" (that was her word).
- what's the link between what you are replying to and abandoning
vonNeumann arch ?
You indicate that what you want is more 'meta' and less specific.
People can be meta all they want in a vonNeumann context. It's just that most of today's programming languages have been strongly influenced by the concept of adding a strong program-vs-data distinction back into the game. (for better or worse; and yea, I don't approve)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
i'm still working on this, but not likely to be finished before january...
also, as you can guess....pd synths and effects are generally not as memory friendly as their vst cousins. ..so what i will do is make one folder with everything as is,
and then another one with edited patches with vastly cut down GUI interfaces and oscillators in subpatches with [switch~] objects to turn them off when not in use..., etc....
This is a project that I have wanted to do for a long time, perhaps we could work together on this. I think the best way to handle synths, effects, filters, etc. is to make a set of objects that are as styripped down as possible, just the synth itself, for example, then it can be reused in many ways. Then make separate GUIs, like RRADical, that use those base objects. That would also mean that you could isolate the CPU usage more, since you would not have a GUI if you did not need it.
But just a collection of what's out there is a good start.
.hc
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, hard off wrote:
â> i'm still working on this, but not likely to be finished before january...
also, as you can guess....pd synths and effects are generally not as memory friendly as their vst cousins. ..so what i will do is make one
Â> folder with everything as is,
and then another one with edited patches with vastly cut down GUI interfaces and oscillators in subpatches with [switch~] objects to turn them off when not in use..., etc....
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
zen
\[D[D[D[D
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Chris McCormick wrote:
- what's the link between LISP and abandoning vonNeumann arch ?
That architecture separates storage and processor. LISP blurs the line between the data and the algorithm.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on vonNeumann arch reads:
« The term von Neumann architecture refers to a computer design model that uses a single storage structure to hold both instructions and data. » -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture
So?
IMHO (and not in that webpage), the blurring of the line between data and algorithm dates back to the 1830's, when Charles Babbage and Ada Byron were busy inventing that concept that we now call software, under the name "the analytical machine". The revolutionary idea was that programs needed not be made of hardware (cogwheels or relays) anymore -- they could be made of pure information, which they called "machine language".
Byron also came with that idea that programs would be easier to reuse and had that literary nature so that collections of reusable procedures would be called "libraries" (that was her word).
Thanks for the history lesson. :)
- what's the link between what you are replying to and abandoning
vonNeumann arch ?
You indicate that what you want is more 'meta' and less specific.
People can be meta all they want in a vonNeumann context. It's just that most of today's programming languages have been strongly influenced by the concept of adding a strong program-vs-data distinction back into the game. (for better or worse; and yea, I don't approve)
True.
Using a small number of heavy duty processors to emulate real world extreme computational parallelism is not scalable in my opinion.
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
-
Chris McCormick -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
hard off -
Mathieu Bouchard