[Csnd] p5.js

The Csound Mailinglist
1

Looks like they want to re-do their sound stuff

https://processingfoundation.org/fellowships/p5-sound-fellow-2023-open-call

an opportunity for Csound? Or for Csounders to earn some development cash?

Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Maynooth University
Ireland

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

2

I’m not surprised. I’ve hit some serious issues with p5.sound, I reckon they’ll stick strictly to web audio rather than any wasm stuff, although I didn’t read the call :rofl:

3

12k for 200 hours work

Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Maynooth University
Ireland

4

I’ve often thought about making a p5.csound but the current js Csound is so easy to use there doesn’t seem to be any need. But it would be good PR.

5

Previous versions of Webaudio Csound seemed to play well together with p5.js, there’s some examples by Steven showing that. I would expect this continues to be the case in Csound Wasm.

Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Maynooth University
Ireland

6

p5js and Csound are an extremely powerful combo. I don’t think there is any chance the proposed p5js sound update will come anywhere close to it.

7

Maybe worth doing?

p5.csound

I am sure that in addition to the excellent PR for csound that this might make web audio with csound even more intuitive and elegant.

Dr. Richard Boulanger
Professor
Electronic Production and Design
Berklee College of Music

8

The problem is it becomes another interface to maintain and keep in sync with what Steven Hloover and Ed are doing. And if it’s not maintained and sync-ed tightly it will end up being bad for Csound. Maybe a super lightweight wrapper might work. Basically something to expose the Csound object to users in p5js. Something like

let cs = new p5.Csound();

and after that users can just call all the native Csound object methods. It would really just be a marketing exercise :joy: But still…

9

this lightweight wrapper would be a great feature!!

10

I’ll take a look and see if it’s worth it :+1:

11

12k for 200 hours

12

Yeah, but I don’t think they would go for a 3rd party library. I get the impression they want to do it with native web audio.

13

Maybe they would consider paying something to support this effort.

Dr. Richard Boulanger
Professor
Electronic Production and Design
Berklee College of Music