Lua intergration into next maxMSP version?
Lua is mostly used for scripting of games (to give Funcionality and Logic into Gamemaps und such). I even made a pixeledtor in Lua for the PSP: http://www.node3000.com/digital-tools/download/smoove_pixel_tile_and_spriteeditor_for_sony_psp_psplua.php
Have you seen jit.gl.lua?
On 5/31/07, Martin Wisniowski
> Hi all.
> Lua is mostly used for scripting of games (to give Funcionality and Logic into Gamemaps und such). I even made a pixeledtor in Lua for the PSP: http://www.node3000.com/digital-tools/download/smoove_pixel_tile_and_spriteeditor_for_sony_psp_psplua.php
Thanks, but unfortunatelly I don’t have Jitter. MSP integration would be still nice. In fact the lib is a good example on the expressive power of Lua, but can’t solve problems in max, because it’s OpenGL suited.
On May 31, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Martin Wisniowski wrote:
> prominent place in maxMSP, while Lua doesn’t?
I find "which coding is a pain" odd. Lua and JS are *very* similar
languages. I don’t understand how coding in either one is fundamentally
more of a pain than the other, so I assume it’s just a personal
preference. Most JS/Lua core language capabilities are easily moved
from one to another. If you have a Lua code snippet of a task, I’m sure
> I think Lua is the perfect solution for scripting, doing logic or
> mindles repetitive task, so thinking about Lua intergration instead of
I suppose that everyone thinks their language of choice is the perfect
one. As Wes stated, there’s some provisional Lua support, and we’re
looking to make it easier to make language bindings in Max. It won’t be
"instead" of JS, but rather an optional "in addition to".
Over the past months I’ve been prototyping a binding of Lua for audio
synthesis, including an object for MSP (‘lua~’). It appears to be
more or less stable now, so if anyone is interested in beta-testing
and giving feedback before a full release, please drop me a line.
Currently only OSX (UB), but hope to have it compiled for Windows in
the next few weeks.
A brief, semi-technical description for the curious:
There are a few special advantages to using Lua – its memory
allocator/garbage collector and general efficiency supports
interpreting script code in the audio thread, which means that sample-
accurate function calls and control logic are possible. Lua also
supports coroutines (collaborative multithreading), kind of like
deterministic threads that are very cheap to run. I’ve extended them
to be aware of sample time, so they can be used like Routines or
Tasks in SuperCollider 3, but they can embed both control logic AND
synthesis graphs like SuperCollider 2, and also like shreds in ChucK.
The nicest aspect: you can generate, execute, change and remove any
number of any types of unit generators to the signal processing with
sample accuracy, below the block-size, at run-time, within
deterministic parallel execution flows. Think algorithmic
microsound, for example. The flexibility comes with a cost of
course, but I was surprised how well it actually performs.
The not so nice aspect: Binding Lua to Max/MSP is much less simple
than binding to Jitter, because of the underlying object model in the
SDK (Jitter objects have excellent reflection, while only the most
recently obexed’ Max objects do). The main issue is that it is not
workable to create, connect and modify MSP objects from within a
script binding. Unfortunately this means that I had to write a new
set of elementary unit generators rather than re-using MSP object
code. I’m also in the process of binding the STK library, so a
standard, familiar set of ugens and so on will be available.
Like jit.gl.lua, the plan is to support dynamic loading of extension
modules, so that new C/Lua functionality can be written and added
without needing to recompile lua~. If I can get my head around the
details of dynamic loading on both OSX and Windows, that is.
Quote: jkc wrote on Thu, 31 May 2007 20:11
> I suppose that everyone thinks their language of choice is the perfect
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
When will we get Pascal and LISP support in Max/MSP?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist; insert smileys as needed. And, actually, ELAN would be my PL of choice, but that’s so wierd no one else will know it).
And don’t forget LOLCODE!
Am 04.06.2007 um 21:05 schrieb Peter Castine:
> ELAN would be my PL of choice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Peter Castine wrote:
>> I suppose that everyone thinks their language of choice is the
> Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
> When will we get Pascal and LISP support in Max/MSP?
> (Sorry, couldn’t resist; insert smileys as needed. And, actually,
> ELAN would be my PL of choice, but that’s so wierd no one else will
> know it).
Personally, I’d vote for object-oriented FORTH support… ;) Heh,
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe
Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM < http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space < http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
CMP < http://www.csf.edu/csf/academics/cmp/index.html>
On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Nick Rothwell wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2007, at 20:17, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
>> And don’t forget LOLCODE!
> I’m a bit more hardcore:
> Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
P.S. Fark and Something Awful are that way.
On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:56 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Nick Rothwell wrote:
v a d e //
and let’s not forget emoticon :-Q S:-P :-Q
IMHO only Ruby and Python needs to be included.
On 6/5/07, nesa
> and let’s not forget emoticon :-Q S:-P :-Q
Well thanks for this collection of exotic languages. At least I am glad to see something happen with that Lua thing. Thanks again.
Peter Castine schrieb:
> When will we get Pascal and LISP support in Max/MSP?
Pascal is old school, Oberon is the way to go, and maxlisp exists
already (thanks Brad….)…
I’d be happy to be able to create externals in Oberon/ObjectiveC-Pascal.
When reading the SDK docs it seems that in theory it should be possible.
And there is an Oberon to C compiler, which seems a bit "von hinten
durch die Brust ins Auge", but it would probably create more efficient
code than an unoptimized native Oberon compiler…
Steven Miller schrieb:
> Personally, I’d vote for object-oriented FORTH support… ;) Heh, heh,
any updates on that? windows version?
Sounds cool Graham, I would be very interested in an XP
version as well. Please keep us posted.
lol my english
…when you remember your pass, kowing what you know today, the only logical result for that is dreamings about the future.
build an extarnal… an object capable of read and execute basic instructions.
it is possible to build a code mask.
it is possible to build a basic to c "translater"
wright basic…execute a real exeternal object.
it needs some basic new commands like inlet and outlet
and then… you run a patch and the object auto transform it self into a c++ and compiled object runnig in your patch…maybe with the temp file trick ;)
WHY NOT….to build a Max/MSP/JITTER to c++ translater and compiler. the translater, renders the patch code into an executable file, capable of runing by it self…. no max runtime… the real thing…
a progam language it’s only a way to tell cpu to work… and cpu do not speak english.. so the translater has to exist.
in the future…
a perfect future…
when you live in harmony with you computer…
USER (you on your favorit chair… or at the bed…)
COMPUTER (a retro like speaking computer, like in alian! with sound fx and all…)
A Normal Max Day
computer: HELLO User!
user: Want to build patch capable of taking coofee ’cause i only want to.
Computer: OK. hummm… do you want a milk and suggar calculator?
User: hummm… that’s fine… and a temperature one too!
Computer: OK. I will start to compile the pach for you… do you want… hummm…. never mind!
Sorry, I had to take lua~ down because it was having threading
issues, which I’m working on resolving almost literally as I write
this. Nothing wrong with the Lua engine, just something tricky about
managing state between audio and message threads in Max (and in
general really). As soon as that’s done, I’ll get an XP version up…
should be in the next month I hope.
On Oct 4, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Anthony Palomba wrote:
> Sounds cool Graham, I would be very interested in an XP
> version as well. Please keep us posted.