I'd just like to point out that Lojban is a constructed language, not a natural language. It was designed and built from the ground up, as opposed to the GP's controlled natural languages which are pre-existing human languages with a bunch of stuff stripped out of them.
You can edit the PKGBUILD from the AUR. change the pkgver to 0.3.8, and update the md5sums to a292c8d0cd2e9269ea71bcd45f2f7908 and 9a7077a8dd3e5a2c9531e2943cba2f43, respectively. This worked for me.
I feel like it's worth pointing out the distinction between SuperCollider the programming language and SuperCollider the audio synthesis server. The audio server is stand-alone and can be controlled via Open Sound Control. The language is a music DSL that abstracts over the OSC messages and acts as a client to the synth server. Overtone is another client to the synth server, but I'm not sure how much it's following the SuperCollider language. Also, there's an scruby project https://github.com/maca/scruby .
You're right, and in Overtone we haven't really tried to mirror SCLang at all. The DSP core of scsynth is a great piece of software with many years of testing, debugging, and extension, so it's wonderful that we can leverage this externally by just sending OSC. Of course we want to pull in any good ideas we find from the sc class library or any other music system, but generally we have been working on creating an expressive synthesis language that clearly communicates what is being produced. In SCLang there are many syntactic tricks and shortcuts which allow you to create very terse definitions, but they are often to the detriment of readability. With Clojure's lazy sequences we can easily model many interesting types of generative musical structures, and with easy access to the JVM ecosystem of libraries we can now control our musical processes with external tools or devices, visualize them with nice graphics, auralize external phenomena (e.g. people have hooked into automated build/test systems), etc., far easier than in SClang.
Judging from the top questions that I read, this is not a site for linguists, at least not ones interested in descriptive rules of language. Nearly all questions asked about standards of written English, which are arbitrary and uninteresting to a linguist, except in that the bickering over what is “proper” might bring to our attention divergent forms among varieties of English.
For people interested in the debate over whether a “correct” English (or any language for that matter) exists, here is an interesting article by Geoffrey Pullum:
Re: written English vs. spoken English
Spoken English is a primary linguistic form while written English is secondary or parasitic on spoken forms, so actually from a linguistic perspective, calling written English a language is wrong. English exists in speakers’ minds and written English is a filtered encoding of that language with certain non-linguistic constraints put upon it (e.g. in my dialect of English, dropping an auxiliary at the beginning of a yes/no question is completely okay, but in writing, I hardly ever do this, unless in a very informal context. This is because written standards tell me not to.)
A lot of the signal in spoken English is carried by tone of voice and emphasis. Which confuses people from cultures where emphasis is not part of the signal, much as English speakers are often confused by tonal languages.
Written English is more formal presumably because it has to get by without that part of the signal.
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Happy_Birthday_Song_Contes...