In the previous paragraphs we have seen that CLAM presents substantial differences in respect to some other environments approaches. Nevertheless, all those compared environments are not in the same category (General Purpose Audio Processing Framework) than CLAM so these differences may in some sense be justified. The previous comparison has been useful to justify CLAM's overall approach.
We will now justify its detailed approach and some design decisions by commenting on the main conceptual similarities and differences that CLAM presents in respect to the different environments in its subcategory. These are: the Create Signal Library (CSL), Open Sound World (OSW), Synthesis ToolKit (STK), Aura, SndObj, FORMES and the NeXT Sound Kit. We will leave the last two out of the general comparison only including them when necessary. Both FORMES and the NeXT are no longer in use, have just been included for historical completeness and particularly the latter has a slightly different focus aiming at providing operating system level audio tools.
Let us first comment what are the main similarities between these frameworks and CLAM. It is important to highlight that most of the frameworks in this category have goals very similar to CLAM, particularly STK, CSL, SndObj and FORMES explicitly recognize subsets of CLAM's goals as exposed in section 3.1. In this sense, for instance, it is interesting to note that all of them are implemented in C++ and aim at being cross-platform (although some of them have still reached this goal). They are also all open source although this assertion is redundant for a framework as you always need the source code to build and extend applications.
In a more conceptual ground, all of them are also object-oriented and offer some sort of graph-based model in which processes are nodes of the graph. The concept of Processing objects in CLAM has more or less direct equivalents in all of them: they are called unit generators in CSL, transforms in OSW, instruments in STK, either unit generators in Aura, sound objects in SndObj, and processes in FORMES. Note that this concept is not exclusive of this category of environments but is rather an idea that is repeated in many other environments (they are called transformations in Marsyas, transforms in Kyma, objects in Max, or EventGenerators and EventModifiers in Mode).
In all of these frameworks, the ``processing objects'' are connected in some way in order to build a more complex ``network'' that conforms the base of a given application. As mentioned in this section CLAM offers two different mechanisms for composing with processing objects. If the composition is static we call the result a Processing Composite Object while if it is dynamic we call it Processing Network. In many aspects CLAM's Processing Composites are equivalent to Aura's instruments or FORMES' relation between parent and children processes while CLAM Processing Networks are like CSL's, OSW's or Max's patches.
We will now comment the main differences that CLAM presents in respect to these same frameworks. As a general difference, it must be noted that all of them have followed a development process that differs from CLAM's. As a matter of fact, all of them can be considered "one-man-systems", they have been thought out, designed and even developed by one or two people: CSL by Stephen Travis Pope, Open Sound World by Amar Chaudray, STK by Perry Cook and Gary Scavone, Aura by Roger Dannenberg and Eli Brandt, SndObj by Victor Lazzarini, FORMES by Xavier Rodet and Pierre Conte and the NEXT Sound Kit by M. Lentezner. None of them has had such a large development team as CLAM's (see annex A for more practical information on this issue).
But most importantly, none of them has a defined or explicit policy of acknowledging and adding user feedback into the development life cycle. Moreover, none of them declares having a truly incremental or agile process methodology and the number of releases of the frameworks are much less frequent than in CLAM.
The CSL library (see 2.3.3) is still not mature enough and as the authors recognize their experience with the C++ programming language is rather limited and the framework needs further design refactorings [Pope and Ramakrishnan, 2003]. On the other hand although CSL is clearly object-oriented and presents a clean design, the graphical model of computation is not explicit and ends-up being a bit confusing.
Open Sound World (see 2.3.2) is, out of all these frameworks, the one that probably presents a cleaner and most mature design. It is clearly object-oriented and the graphical model of computation is clearly stated. It is efficient and offers many tools. Nevertheless, it has some differences with CLAM that should be noted. OSW goal is not to become an application framework but rather to offer a music composition tool ala Max. Therefore by aiming at being at artistic/creative tool, its focus is clearly not that of CLAM, which is to offer a research/development environment. On the other hand, OSW is mostly a ``one-man system'' and is therefore mostly synthesis-oriented. This developer is no longer working on the framework and although some other people work on it, it is not very active nor updated regularly.
Although the Synthesis Toolkit or STK (see 2.3.2) is also a ``one-man system'' (or more exactly ``two-men'') it has a long history and it is still updated and maintained on a regular basis. Nevertheless, it presents a fundamental difference with CLAM in being clearly synthesis-oriented. STK offers very few tools for audio or music analysis. Another difference is that in STK there is no clear distinction between process and data, this is possibly a feasible decision for a synthesis-only application but not so if data can be the result of a previous analysis process.
The Aura framework (see 2.3.2) is Free Software and is available from the author. Nevertheless, at the time of this writing Aura does still not have a publicly supported version because of lack of documentation and because of its steep learning curve. In its current state it is not truly cross-platform as it is only being developed and tested on the Windows platform. Aura aims at offering an efficient real-time implementation, not only for audio but for general real-time applications. Because of this the framework sometimes compromises the understandability and easiness of use of the model. Other practical differences are that Aura only operates on fixed size data chunks of audio (it would be difficult to integrate other data such as spectrums) and there is no clear distinction between control and signal data.
Finally, SndObj (see 2.3.3) is not a very mature framework and does not offer many tools or examples. This is so because SndObj is the most clear example of an strictly speaking ``one-man system''. SndObj is object-oriented and graph-based but its model is not very clear. On the other hand it does not focus on efficiency issues and it is not likely to work on complex real-time situations.