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)

we have different opinions with regard to the admissibility of peer reviewed publications, further discussion on what are usable sources is futile. The policy guidelines were modified to include the statement "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" for good reason. The use of peer reviewed publications here is limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements" I see no evidence of misuse. Additionally, if you look at the number of times Wang's work on ChucK has been cited, it's clear many more verifiable sources exist. There's nothing more I wish to add here, thanks for your input. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That they are "peer reviewed publications" is IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand. That Wang's writings are WP:PRIMARY sources is incontrovertible based upon WP:PSTS. Also incontrovertible is the fact that that policy demands that articles rely principally on WP:SECONDARY sources. It is your argumentation that is "futile", besides being tendentious and fallacious (an ignoratio elenchi, I think). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

wankery. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To Hrafn: Do you have no other useful contribution to make to Wikipedia other than to delete material that other people find useful? Point granted that the article needs work. Can't we just leave it at that, and wait for somebody to make a POSITIVE contribution? I would be inclined to pass on by without further comment were it not for the increasing trend toward vandalizing of wiki by pedants. It could be improved, but it is useful as is. Please, for god's sake leave it alone and move on. Edrowland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

It seems to me that it takes at least two to keep an argument alive. I walked away after getting told I just being "silly" to argue based on the guidelines; that's when I decided it was getting pointless. Of the two still standing, you've decided to chastise the one remaining who's also been arguing based on the guidelines, ignoring the one whose arguments seem more focused on characterizing other editor with unhelpful terms like "wikilawyering" and as lacking common sense. I also don't think you're helping things with the judgmental personal characterizations you've added.

I agree that we should focus on improving article, but first, I think we need to end this silly argument by acknowledging that WP:COMMONSENSE does not dictate content decisions, we do it by WP:CONSENSUS in accordance with the various policies and guidelines. If someone has philosophical problems with that, the discussion should go elsewhere. Here, the focus should be on developing a consensus on what the content should be in this specific article, consistent with the need to source things appropriately. That's really all there is to it. Msnicki (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To Edrowland:

1. WP:ITSUSEFUL is widely acknowledged to be a completely awful argument against deleting material (both as it generally lacks specifics, and because its specific usefulness can very often conflict with the limits of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT).
2. As your sole contribution to this article has been to cite previously unreferenced material to (<drum-roll> you guessed it) Ge Wang (incidentally, Semitransgenic's strident claims notwithstanding, we have no evidence that the Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference are peer-reviewed), making the article even more obviously What Ge Wang says about his ChucK programming language, rather than anything even resembling an objective/WP:NPOV article, I will take the liberty of having less than complete faith in your opinions on what constitutes making a "useful contribution". Unlike you I at least have gone looking for THIRD PARTY SOURCES.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, given your standards, what do you propose we do with this or the very similar article on Impromptu (programming environment)? The only independent sources that cover that one in more than a sentence are currently blogs. We could reduce such articles to one sentence supported by dozens of independent academic citations, but I suspect that would be pretty pointless and controversial. I think we can assume that a paper having a fair number of citations is not complete bollocks, so it can be cited for a fair amount of information, even if it is a primary source. ChucK's first paper has some 80 citations in Google Scholar, and Impromptu's has some 27, if you're curious. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On your talk page, FuFoFuEd, you questioned Hrafn's assertion that we have no evidence that the Proceedings of the ICMC are peer-reviewed. But he's correct, isn't he? We don't have any evidence they were peer-reviewed, so far as I can see. In fact, they probably weren't peer-reviewed, wouldn't you agree?

My understanding of peer-review matches the discussion at the Linux Info Project, "In the case of peer reviewed journals, which are usually academic and scientific periodicals, peer review generally refers to the evaluation of articles prior to publication." I suppose it's possible there are conferences that require papers be peer-reviewed before they're presented (maybe a medical conference?) but I've never been to one. Yes, of course, after publication, I'm sure the ICMC papers got discussed (a broader sense of peer review also acknowledged at Linfo.org) but that's not the same thing, especially as it affects us. Post review means that any problematic claims will still be there. Prior review means that the article itself and all the claims had to satisfy the review before it got printed. If there were statements in the original manuscript that got challenged, they're not even there for us to quote from inadvertently. This makes a big difference in reliability and independence. Msnicki (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FuFoFuEd: given that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and always will exist on a project the size of Wikipedia, I "propose" not letting the existence of other crap not-on-my-watchlist get in the way trying to seek a more reasonable balance between neutral third party sourcing, and Ge Wang's self-descriptions of his project here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you two should probably buy the Linux Format issue which has independent coverage of ChucK and rewrite the article from that. I'm curious how different it will turn out from how it's currently written. I don't see what makes ChucK so special, it's certainly not medical software, that requires this level suspicion regarding its sources. Independent articles in trade magazines are commonly used for writing about software, see for instance Hamilton C shell. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing "special" about attempting to see normal Wikipedia policy applied. Admittedly, in my darker moments, I do suspect that most Wikipedia articles are poorly written, poorly maintained and thus likely to be in pervasive policy non-compliance. But again, that isn't a reason for not starting somewhere. I would be perfectly happy to see Wang-based material replaced with material from trade mags (not exactly prominent sources, but certainly better than self-descriptions), but rather doubt if an article subtitled "Tired of the same old music in the charts, we create our own music from a series of pseudo random numbers" will yield much in the way of encyclopaedic content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I leave you in the clutches of despair then. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FuFoFuEd, your responses don't seem as helpful or cooperative as they could be. When Hrafn pointed out that here on WP, our objective is to follow the consensus guidelines and that it's not about what somebody got away with elsewhere, you responded with yet another WP:OTHERSTUFF link. Moreover, the comparison doesn't even support your position. That other stuff article has 6 traditional independent secondary print sources and all the major claims about the product are backed up by those sources. Primary sources were used, but only to explain the author's reasons for various design choices or to fill in detail. That is what the guidelines ask and what we should be doing here. Let's try to discuss this article in relation to the guidelines, not other articles, please. Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"But he's correct, isn't he? We don't have any evidence they were peer-reviewed, so far as I can see. In fact, they probably weren't peer-reviewed, wouldn't you agree?" Actually, this is wrong, remarkably wrong, ICMC papers are peer reviewed. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Previously closed. See next section. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ICMC

Pursuant to the discussion above, I did a google search, and ICMC claims its papers are peer-reviewed. "The ICMC interweaves peer-reviewed paper presentations with concerts of new computer music, creating a vital synthesis of science, technology, and the art of music." [1]. "The Proceedings is the collection of peer-reviewed papers and studio reports presented at each ICMC." Of course, that's not independent coverage of that statement. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that suffices to establish that Wang's articles in the proceedings were peer-reviewed (though still WP:PRIMARY.) Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Whether the Code is actually a sample of the Chuck Programming Language.

I removed the OR tag from the programming language sample, given that it seems unlikely that we are going to find a reliable secondary source that will verify that this actually *IS* a sample of the chuck programming language. And also because it is self-evidently uncontroversial. Legalism interfering with the usefullness of the article itself: surely there must be a legalism that deals with that. WP:CommonSense, perhaps? Edrowland (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that tag. I don't think this is what WP:OR contemplates either. If the examples appear somewhere, even if they are only in a primary source, I would consider that reliable WP:RS for that purpose. This isn't a major claim, it's merely an illustrative example. If the examples don't actually work, I presume that will get discovered. But one improvement that might be considered, if we have an editor who can do it, is a screenshot showing these examples and audio clips of what they sound like. I thought the rest of your remarks about "legalism" were less helpful. Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken with respect to helpfulness. Thank you. Edrowland (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst a WP:SECONDARY source is unnecessary, some source is. Lacking such a source it would appear likely that an editor just created some ChucK code on the spot -- i.e. did WP:Original Research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR defines original research as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." I don't think a code example does any of that. Unless perhaps it's demonstrating a bug or contains an inappropriate comment embedded into the example, what possible fact, allegation or idea could any such example convey that's not supported by the sources? It's hard to see how a code example could advance a position not advanced by the sources, i.e., the language specifications.

The prohibition on original research is not a complete prohibition on creativity. We can still make creative decisions about selecting facts and how they're arranged on the page, we can create original sentences that have never appeared elsewhere in print and we can illustrate the articles with photographs, screenshots and charts that have also never appeared anywhere. I do not believe that the guidelines ask that we only show examples that have appeared elsewhere. Msnicki (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain how any of these "creative decisions" exceptions apply to the (uncited) code in question, particularly given the prohibition against WP:Synthesis? And I would definitely consider a code example to contain "facts" (about what is valid language syntax), as well as "ideas" (the code's intended purpose or results). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• A quick survey of some other articles on computing languages found that (at least multi-line) code examples are uncommon, but the two that I did find were unreferenced. Therefore, although I personally think that such unfettered, unfounded-in-explicit-source 'creativity' is WP:OR and not a particularly wonderful idea, there does appear to be at least a loose WP:CONSENSUS for allowing it. So I withdraw my objection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. I'm not insensitive to your concern. If we're adding an unsourced example, it seems to me that it has to be sufficiently trivial as to be pretty obvious to anyone who understands the rest of the article. A code sample that prints, "Hello, world", is one thing; a sample that implements someone's idea for a cool stock picking algorithm is something else. Also, I confess that sans any explanation of the language itself or how that example works or even what it does, I'm not satisfied we're done completely with any discussion. All I'm at, so far, is that I'm okay to have an example that's unsourced. I'm not there to say this is it nor that it should stay without additional content that supports it. Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Third party sources

• As mentioned above, Automatic annotation of musical audio for interactive applications has one specific paragraph & one generalised paragraph on ChucK
• A semantic time framework for interactive media systems By Eric Lee p114 also has a paragraph, but I'm not sure how useful it is (loose comparison between ChucK and other timing-concerned languages).
• The programming language as a musical instrument is liberally sprinkled with snippets of information on ChucK, but never stays on the topic for more than a sentence or so.

(Will add as/when I find more.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the code sample

I've been thinking over the discussion earlier on the page. I continue to believe it's allowable, not WP:OR, to have code samples that may have been created by an editor, not verifiable against an actual source. But this example has a deeper problem: I think it's a variation on the problem remarked on 40 years ago:

I have been told from various sides that as soon as a programming community is equipped with a terminal for it, a specific phenomenon occurs that even has a well-established name: it is called "the one-liners." It takes one of two different forms: one programmer places a one-line program on the desk of another and either he proudly tells what it does and adds the question, "Can you code this in less symbols?" — as if this were of any conceptual relevance! — or he just says, "Guess what it does!"

— Edsger W. Dijkstra, The Humble Programmer, ACM Turing Award Lectures: The First Twenty Years, 1966-1985, p. 28

As it stands, it's not a one-liner and it's not in APL, the actual subject of Dijkstra's scorn, but it is a "Guess what it does" example and as such, it serves no purpose. If you understand the rest of the article, you should be able to understand the example. If you can't do that, it's not really an example. Without additional material to explain how the language works and what this sample does, I think the whole section should go. Thoughts? Msnicki (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although I was the one who originally complained about the example, I'm not sure I would agree with you. The reader might not (and quite probably need not) know what the code does, it might however be helpful to know what code from a given language looks like (it's been years since I could program in LISP or COBOL, but I still can, and might still find it useful to be able to, recognise what they look like -- ditto for Fortran, which I never could program in in the first place). This means that if they come across code in a given, unknown, language, they can look up likely candidates in Wikipedia, see if they can find one with similar-looking code, and thence find a book on the language that it turns out to be. I think such reference-use fall within the remit of an encyclopaedia (though I could be wrong). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree it's useful for the article to give the reader some insight into what the language looks like. But I think the way to do should be by listing and explaining a few of the key language features. Then maybe a simple example can be given, followed by a sentence or two to explain how it works or why it's interesting. Given that this is all about generating sound, I personally think it's next to inexcusable if the example doesn't also come with an audio clip, but that's maybe just me. Msnicki (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that "key language features" would be useful -- and would suspect something along the lines of 'key differentiations from similar-purpose languages/apps' (i.e. the language's particular strengths/weaknesses, sourced to a third party) would be even more useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We're on the same page about what would be better. Lacking that, do you want to keep the code sample or dump it? :) Msnicki (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm weakly in favour of keeping. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)