Talk:ChucK

Code example

It's a wonderful code example, what does it do? - Two Halves, who might guess, but would likely be wrong...

One of the things I like about Chuck is that the code seems to be pretty easy to read.

I did run it just to check. The effect is as follows:

A sine wave oscillator runs continuously, which is set to a new frequency every 120 ms. The pitch is chosen at random from the array hi and the octave offset also at random from 0 to +4. Finally the patch is run through a reverb effect. It sounds like a computer from a 1950s science fiction movie.

A programming language does not run on a machine...

...instead, it has compilers running on various machines. User:Dpotop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.2.32 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Static vs dynamic

The info box said ChucK was both static and dynamically typed. Not sure how that is possible, and the main body and code example suggests it is statically typed. Maybe there was confusion between dynamic types and dynamic interpretation? I have deleted the dynamic type thing, pretty sure that's right. Yaxu (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Free Software

I hope my clarification of the sentence on free software is correct, I couldn't find a source although am pretty sure smule use the ChucK engine on the iPhone. Yaxu (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found an announcement buried in the mailing list for 2008 stating that the ChiP (ChucK for iPhone) is not currently licensed, but the devs "want to make it open and make it work". I've updated the article. twilsonb (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This should deal with the OR issue. twilsonb (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

COI

A major contributor to this article is User:Gewang, who states on his user page that he designed ChucK. Msnicki (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly excessively long excerpt

Can someone else take a look at the PC Magazine citation, please, and offer their opinion? The non-free content guidelines ask that we avoid excessively long copyrighted excerpts and this looks long to me. Could this be shortened but still verify the same points? Msnicki (talk)

Sourcing

Of the six citations given in the article:

• Three are to the topic's creator
• One is to a blog comment -- not WP:RS

Further, large swathes of the article are unsourced (and much is most probably OR).

This article is seriously in need of reliable third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

in terms of the three cites, the guy is simply reiterating his research here, there is no issue with that, as far as I recall Chuck was part of his doctorate studies at Stanford, which he passed, there are also a number of legitimate conference papers, so his academic work is published, meaning it can be presented here without issue, if it were self-published work that would be a different matter, but yes, a blog comment is not RS. The main problem with this page is formatting. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is an issue. Wikipedia articles are meant to be predominately WP:SECONDARY/third-party sources discussing the topic -- not the topic's creator "simply reiterating his research here". Per {{primarysources}} (which Ruud Koot repeatedly removed from the article) "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two parts to the problem. One is notability and whether the article should exist at all. Hrafn and I both took the position at the AfD that notability wasn't satisfied. We lost; the consensus went the other way and it's time to drop that WP:STICK. The second part, content and the sourcing of the major claims, remains an issue. It's okay to use primary sources to fill in detail or to provide explanation that can't come from any other source, e.g., the author's reasoning for certain choices in his design. But it's not okay to use them to write basically the whole article, no matter how notable the subject. Major claims (what it does, how it works, how it differs from other approaches, etc.) really should be verifiable against secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

is peer reviewed research considered primary? if that's the case, then we need to excise huge swathes of wikipedia. --Semitransgenic (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's written by the topic's author/creator/originator, then yes it is. WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." I would suggest that Wang's papers are both "very close to" the topic and directly analogous to "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Generally, a peer reviewed publication is considered a reliable publication, it's how academics build careers, common sense, in this instance, determines - based on the nature of the article's content - that this case does not warrant an aggressive approach. In actuality, in the context of computer languages designed specifically for the purposes of sound creation and musical composition, ChucK is notable, someone in this field of research would be aware of this fact, which is something that appears to be overlooked here.--Semitransgenic (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CORPDEPTH: "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." [emphasis added] Most of the content should come from secondary sources. Also, from WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you quoting from guidelines applicable to notability of organizations and companies? that's irrelevant here. But, since the issue is being drawn out, notability has been established, in the relevant field of inquiry, hence the mention in The Oxford handbook of computer music and The Cambridge companion to electronic music. The sourcing could of course be strengthened but the criticism of the current sources is somewhat confused really. Again, some common sense would not go astray here.--Semitransgenic (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CORPDEPTH: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." ChucK appears to be a product; it even comes with a license. You're welcome to challenge others' positions or ask for explanations. But it's unhelpful to exhort them to WP:COMMONSENSE. Msnicki (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

now you are just being silly, it's freeware. It's also unhelpful to indulge in wikilawyering, but may i commend you on your extensive knowledge of wiki regulations, good work! this is exactly the kind of idiotic behaviour that is scaring away academic contributors.--Semitransgenic (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No Semitransgenic it is you who is indulging in "silly", "unhelpful", "idiotic" wikilawyering. The exact same point that Msnicki in making is contained in WP:PSTS, which is core policy. So you can leave off the faux-victimhood card -- nobody's buying! This article needs substantial WP:SECONDARY/third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, having read the AfD, it's clear there's a bee in someone's bonnet, explains the level of agitation here. Again: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Happy policing. --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Again:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

— WP:PSTS

Happy "silly", "unhelpful", "idiotic" wikilawyering. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

if you really wanted to "improve" the article, the info is there. You have another agenda here, good luck with that. --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what's out there in terms of third party coverage is mostly passing mention in discussion of Smule, the Laptop orchestra, MoSievius, and all sorts of other topics. The best that I've been able to come up with to date is a single paragraph on ChucK specifically (and a second on a group of languages including ChucK) in Automatic annotation of musical audio for interactive applications. I'm getting more than a bit tired of your ad hominem attacks attempting to distract away from the sourcing problems -- as WP:TALK states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)