## Reviewer #1

### Questions

- **2. Is this submission properly anonymized?**
    - Yes
- **3. Reviewer's Confidence**
    - Expert
- **4. How relevant is this work to the computer music community and ICMC 2025?**
    - Highly Relevant
- **5. Does the paper's contribution comparable to the paper's length?**
    - Yes
- **6. Detailed assessment of the paper. Assess originality, contribution to the field, research quality, and presentation clarity. Please provide constructive feedback.**
    - This paper extends an important conversation about the ontological status of computer music programs. Its main value is in opening and focusing perspectives and areas for further inquiries. The main focus here is on what may be termed "non-commercial" computer music programs, in contrast to production-oriented DAWs. (DAWs receive mention in the paper but are not explored in depth. They should be part of a larger consideration of present day computer music programs.)  
          
        As a critique, not all of the sources are fully stated. For example (from the paper): "The claim that PCM-based sound synthesis can produce“almost any sound” is underpinned by an ideology associated with sound reproduction technologies." This should be attributed to an actual quote. It seems somewhat related to Max Mathews' assertion in The Technology of Computer Music (1969) that "All sounds have a pressure function and any sound can be produced by generating its pressure function. Thus if we can develop a pressure source capable of producing any pressure function, it will be capable of producing any sound, including speech, music, and noise."  
          
        Another critique - this paper needs to be carefully proofread, as there are many grammar errors currently. Also, be sure that all acronyms are defined. For example LLVM (low level virtual machine) is never defined in the paper. Do the same for DSL.  
          
        Also note that Csound is the correct spelling, not CSound. Again, there's lots of good content in this paper, but it needs serious editing by a second reader.
- **8. Overall Evaluation Scale**
    - Accept

## Reviewer #2

### Questions

- **2. Is this submission properly anonymized?**
    - Yes
- **3. Reviewer's Confidence**
    - Knowledgeable
- **4. How relevant is this work to the computer music community and ICMC 2025?**
    - Marginally Relevant
- **5. Does the paper's contribution comparable to the paper's length?**
    - No
- **6. Detailed assessment of the paper. Assess originality, contribution to the field, research quality, and presentation clarity. Please provide constructive feedback.**
    - The paper lacks a clear structure and is composed of a collection of information that does not necessarily help the reader grasp the author's main idea. Terms such as "computer music" and "post-acousmatic music" are introduced but then abandoned amidst a flood of technical details and code snippets. The assumption presented in the abstract—that "The paper focuses on the universalism around Pulse-Code Modulation (PCM) and the Unit Generator concept established by the MUSIC-N family, which created a lineage of roles between composers and scientists, tending to turn composers into consumers"—could have merit but is not sufficiently demonstrated or supported throughout the text.  
          
        During my reading, I found myself imagining how a paper with the opposite assumption might be constructed, exploring figures like John Chowning and Jean-Claude Risset, and how the roles of scientist and composer are intertwined within the same computational environment. This suggests that the author's argument could benefit from a more focused and consistent discourse. Specifically, the author should better define the compositional context being addressed and clarify the impact of specific tools on particular creative approaches.  
          
        The current approach, with its overly broad assumption (which may or may not hold true) and a tendency to cherry-pick information, makes it difficult to build a coherent argument or effectively demonstrate a hypothesis. To improve, the author should refine their focus, provide clearer definitions, and develop a more structured and evidence-based narrative. This would strengthen the paper's contribution and make it more accessible and convincing to readers.
- **8. Overall Evaluation Scale**
    - Reject

## Reviewer #3

### Questions

- **2. Is this submission properly anonymized?**
    - Yes
- **3. Reviewer's Confidence**
    - Knowledgeable
- **4. How relevant is this work to the computer music community and ICMC 2025?**
    - Highly Relevant
- **5. Does the paper's contribution comparable to the paper's length?**
    - Yes
- **6. Detailed assessment of the paper. Assess originality, contribution to the field, research quality, and presentation clarity. Please provide constructive feedback.**
    - The paper provides a well-articulated and critical review of the historical development of programming languages for music, offering an original and insightful perspective that distinguishes these languages from the broader domain of computer music. I enjoyed reading the paper, which is well written and, notably, has both significant scholarly contribution and also works as a pure educational resource.  
          
          
        A particularly bold and thought-provoking proposition in the paper is the assertion that programming languages for music are not synonymous with computer music. The argument that computer music as a term has, in other words, become an empty signifier is convincing.  
          
        The authors propose a genre-agnostic investigation, focusing on the technological and ideological evolution of these tools rather than their musical outcomes. In particular, the authors critique the universalism associated with Pulse-Code Modulation (PCM), exposing its limitations in sound synthesis compared to alternative methods. This discussion is particularly valuable in challenging long-standing assumptions about digital sound representation and its supposed neutrality.  
          
        The paper’s analysis of UGens as black boxes is another srtong contribution and I agree with the authors' argument on how black boxing exacerbated the division of labour between musicians and scientists/researchers. However, the authors could have considered acknolwedging that scholarship has identified this division as a condition for techno-capitalism. I also suggest considering engaging with the black-boxing critique in computer music found in Masu et al. (2021) "Composing by Hacking: Technology Appropriation as a Pedagogical Tool for Electronic Music".  
          
        As another minor issue, while the paper’s focus on PCM and UGens is - as I said - original and insightful, it occasionally overemphasises their role at the expense of exploring other significant developments and paradigms in music programming languages. A more balanced discussion incorporating alternative approaches could have provided a more comprehensive historical analysis.
        
- **8. Overall Evaluation Scale**
    - Accept