
OpenMusic - jamesbritt
http://repmus.ircam.fr/openmusic/home
======
Joeboy
Other interesting things include Faust and ingen.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAUST_%28programming_language%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAUST_%28programming_language%29)

[http://drobilla.net/software/ingen/](http://drobilla.net/software/ingen/)

~~~
fundamental
[https://github.com/bgribble/mfp](https://github.com/bgribble/mfp) could also
be another similar option.

------
keithpeter
Looking at the screen shot brought puredata to mind.

Appears to provide a visual metaphor with code backend. Thanks for posting.

~~~
videogramme
Max was invented in mid 80 by Miller Puckette at the same institute, IRCAM. He
created the open version, puredata, only in mid 90.

------
errordeveloper
Last time I tried OM, good 5 years back, it required some stupid commercial
implementation of Common Lisp. Is it still there?

~~~
plam3ns
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 stupid commercial implementation called
LispWorks. So - ignorance while using the words "stupid commercial" may be
your fault, but by far not the one of either OM or LispWorks. This is of
course not the point.

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

~~~
uniclaude
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.

~~~
_delirium
The current version is free in several senses, though not all at the same
time. The sources to OpenMusic itself are _libre_ (GPL), and the OpenMusic
binaries made available for download are _gratis_ (they are self-contained and
don't require your own copy of LispWorks). But you do need a copy of LispWorks
to build your own binaries. It's free software, but depends on a proprietary
compiler.

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.

~~~
keithpeter
To summarise: I can download and use OpenMusic the source code of which is
issued under the GPL. But to exercise my free software style rights to hack on
OpenMusic and recompile the changed software I need to buy a licence for a
closed commercial product.

Have I got that right?

~~~
_delirium
Depends entirely on what kind of hacking you want to do. If you want to pull
out parts that are portable Common Lisp and use those, you're free to do so.
If you want to hack the code so the whole thing compiles on SBCL, you're free
to do that too. Similar situation to free-software apps whose developer
targets OSX: no legal barrier to using the code on Linux, but may take some
work.

