OpenMusic
repmus.ircam.fr
OpenMusic
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: OpenMusic
#2Appears to provide a visual metaphor with code backend. Thanks for posting.
Re: OpenMusic
#3Looking at the screen shot brought puredata to mind. Appears to provide a visual metaphor with code backend. Thanks for posting.
Re: OpenMusic
#4Re: OpenMusic
#5https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAUST_%28programming_language%...
Re: OpenMusic
#6Last time I tried OM, good 5 years back, it required some stupid commercial implementation of Common Lisp. Is it still there?
Calling the LispWorks implementation of Common Lisp "stupid", a result of decades of man hours of work of actually not only pretty intelligent, but also very knowledgeable men, who managed to produce a fine product, provided it for a real bargain and surrounded it by a stellar (take my word for it) support for their customers, is sad. Fundamentally. Not in the way of, like if your or mine team wins the 2014 WM of FIFA. Sad in the sense like if I see someone literary pissing at the musicians of the London Philharmonic Orchestra because he doesn't like the sound of violines or just doesn't like Dvořák and especially doesn't like the fact, that he needs to buy a ticket to experience them, one who seems never tried to master any instrument to, if not to understand, then at least to get a feeling about the matter (otherwise he would have already developed some respect), but still he talks about it with words like "stupid commercial".
I hope you don't see an insult in my words, but an inspiration to read more, to learn more. There are intelligent people around you, believe me. And this is rewarding. Finally a lot of them provide their output for bargain (if we talk about Lisp then like LispWorks, but you can take any area) or for nothing monetary (like the authors/maintainers of SBCL).
Regards
Re: OpenMusic
#7Last time I tried OM, good 5 years back, it required some stupid commercial implementation of Common Lisp. Is it still there?
Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you could have downloaded the "Personal Edition", which has very few limitations, none of which concerning the language itself. And if you have asked for an evaluation version, you would certainly have received a time constrained full version of that in your eyes st…
Calling LispWorks stupid might not have been the brightest move around, but the concern was somehow valid.
Re: OpenMusic
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you could have downloaded the "Personal Edition", which has very few limitations, none of which concerning the language itself. And if you have asked for an evaluation version, you would certainly have received a time constrained full version of that in your eyes st…
Your points are all good, but you seem to fail to understand the reason why gp posted this comment. When seeing the Open prefix in the name of some software or platform, people usually except free things, because they've been used to it. Calling LispWorks stupid might not have been the brightest move around, but the concern was somehow valid.
I believe the main LispWorks dependency is on the GUI toolkit. There have been some porting efforts to SBCL/GTK in the past, but afaik none have been completed.
Re: OpenMusic
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you could have downloaded the "Personal Edition", which has very few limitations, none of which concerning the language itself. And if you have asked for an evaluation version, you would certainly have received a time constrained full version of that in your eyes st…
Your points are all good, but you seem to fail to understand the reason why gp posted this comment. When seeing the Open prefix in the name of some software or platform, people usually except free things, because they've been used to it. Calling LispWorks stupid might not have been the brightest move around, but the concern was somehow valid.
First - OM is licensed under GPL (see their website). While the word "open" in the context of GPL can be discutable depending on the view of the gp, that's not a fault of LispWorks.
Second - if not the GPL has been the confusion in the gp, then - to run AND develop for OM no one needs a commercial license of LispWorks (the runtime/compiler/lister/editor are distributed with OM). A professional tool like LispWorks is needed only to recompile OM itself, which is so or so not a hurdle for the gp until he doesn't gain enough knowledge about and experience with OM AND Common Lisp. By the time he gets there, I'm sure - he will either decide that neither OM or Lisp are his things and then again the license is irrelevant - or he will decide to pursue that path in which case the costs for LW are a bargain in comparison to the value one gets. If not OM, but Lisp seems to be something for him at the end - even then he can choose from about a dozen different implementations with different licensing terms from GPL though Open Source up to licenses for tens of tausends per CPU per year.
Third - "open" can be a bit ladden with "free", but it can mean also an "open architecture" or a "development of software open to the public" or whatever. Again - not reading what is written on the website of the OM creators doesn't do good to the gp.
Last - if you or gp mean that one has to bite in every carrot with an engraved "free" on it is serious then... :)
But I started with the idea to help the gp to look deeper before using strong language and less to continue bashing on soft reasoning.
Peace and regards
Re: OpenMusic
#10Last time I tried OM, good 5 years back, it required some stupid commercial implementation of Common Lisp. Is it still there?
Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you could have downloaded the "Personal Edition", which has very few limitations, none of which concerning the language itself. And if you have asked for an evaluation version, you would certainly have received a time constrained full version of that in your eyes st…
The GUI leaves a lot to be desired and it crashed on my face regularly, progress lost included. Exploratory programming was a real nightmare and I got into a workflow where I basically had to copy any progress into Notepad and paste it all back from the beginning when LW crashed. I don't remember the specifics of how and why it happened, because we avoided it like the plague from there on.
If GP called it stupid he might have his own reasons to do so (even if he could've said it more politely). Dismissing his opinion because of how much effort someone has put into LW is not helpful. The man hours of work mean nothing because as a consumer I don't care how much work you've put into it, but only about the quality of the product which, based on my experience, is lacking.
I hope you don't see an insult in my words, just sharing my experience. YMMV.