Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] soft synth as a plugin
From: nick (nixx_AT_nixx.org.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 22:34:20 EEST
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:00, Paul Davis wrote:
> thus guaranteeing that no instruments can be written in other
> languages. for all the mistakes the GTK+ crew made, their design to
> use C as the base language so as to allow for other languages to
> provide "wrappers" was a far-sighted and wise choice. OTOH, i will
> concede that the real-time nature of most synthesis would tend to rule
> out most of the languages of interest.
I'd like to pick all your brains on this one in particular.
indeed, for a plugin soft-synth, it would only ever make sense to write
it in c/c++ or assembler really, a question of speed. Are there really
people who seriously want to write a synth in aynthing else?
And i don't see how enforcing C++ is an issue: it doesnt force you into
a particular style of programming: you can just as easily write c-like
code in c++, but not the other way round.
Basically, your instrument would be a c++ class, but whatever you do
_inside_ that class is up to you.. no need to use objects inside that.
And basically it just cleans up all the code. I'm really having trouble
seeing the drawbacks (other than one needs a c++ compiler installed, and
the fact that c++ projects take longer to compile). oh, and the c++
class could always include (link to) an assembler version of your code..
The other plugin environemnts are using c++, and i feel that a similar
approach is definitely advantageous when people from other platforms may
consider writing/porting to a linux compatible plugin standard.
-Nick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Oct 18 2002 - 22:33:27 EEST