> Its architecture improves latency and performance in ways that are impossible using current techniques, and it opens up the use of new computing platforms for audio acceleration.

"Latency" may actually be the only term more subject to confusion than the term "blockchain."

Is the page claiming that this language can achieve a lower latency under a realtime kernel than can be achieved by iterating over an array of function/arg pointers and delivering at regular intervals the output to ALSA at the lowest delay supported by the machine/chipset/audio hardware combination?

Or is it claiming that the architecture of the language allows the programmer to more easily do complex DSP computation reliably and safely at that same round-trip latency achievable using the design I just described above?

I'd imagine the answer is obviously the latter.

But I'd bet most developers who read the advert would would think this mystical language allows the users to access some kind of new "el dorado latency" with commodity hardware that is not currently achievable using Supercollider or Pd.

I bet that because I know users who have implied that running their single audio-generating app in conjunction with Jack-using-ALSA-backend delivers audio with lower round-trip latency than ALSA alone. They think this because the Jack page says that Jack adds zero latency to the system, and they then confuse the concept of Jack's "system latency" with the "round-trip latency" of their use-case.