[jsyn] Pure Java JSyn

jsyn at music.columbia.edu jsyn at music.columbia.edu
Sat Nov 26 16:02:13 EST 2005

C>T> writes:
> Latency and the cpu processing power inherent in using C is super-important 
> to some of us using this stuff on stage.  It becomes the difference b/w being
>  able to use jsyn for a project and having to choose some other solution.
Ed writes:
> [Losing ASIO] would definately be a show stopper for me.

I was worried about that. There seem to be two types of users. It seems one big
attraction for users is that the synthesis is in fast 'C' and has good 
performance and device access. Improvements in that area, like VST support, or 
WDM streaming would be welcome. SO native code is necessary.

To other users, flexibility in the synthesis architecture is more important and
being able to plug in Java code ugens would be nice. So a pure Java 
implementation is necessary.

A "keep everybody happy" solution would be to keep the engine in native code
since it already exists, and then provide a pure Java version of the engine for
those who want Java flexibility. But now maintaining the engine will require
twice as much work because adding a new ugen will require adding it to both
native and 'C' code. Arrgghh. How do I get the worms back in the can?


More information about the JSyn mailing list