On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 03:26:26 +0000, ian wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Steve Harris wrote: > > > > > > * No mix output mode; only replace. More overhead... > > > > But how many hosts use mix? As a plugin author, having to implement both > > is a pain. I use code generation to make both functions. > > > > Mix is very useful for hosts that are running a lot of plugins. Take for > example a modular soft synth. You can save a lot of memory by having > plugins mix into buffers rather than allocating an output buffer for each > plugin. It's not really that much effort to write a mix function as well > as a replace function when you compare it to the actual plugin development > time. I would be very sorry to see it go, as it would mean people would be > able to get less out of their hardware.
Thay can, but do they. Host authors aren't keen on having multiple code paths either. - Steve
