Jan Depner: > > Why on earth use C++? Use a desent high-level non-crippled language like > > lisp, python or ruby. The lowlevel stuff must of course be written in > > c/c++ or something, but only a very small amount of multitracker-code is > > that low-level. Yes, I have made _huge_ programs in C myself, but that was > > only because I was so damned inexperienced and had so damned slow machine > > to work on at the time. > > > > Today, where there are so many descent libraries for > > lisp/python/ruby/ada(?)/etc(?), and the machines are so fast, > > as good as no one should use c++ for high-level things. You'll > > waste time. > > > > Yes, this might start a flame-war, but I really think people > > should be aware of the C/C++-stupidness. > > > > > Audio is inherently computationally intensive. So your answer to those > who have slower machines is "buy better hardware because I don't want to > bother writing in a language that is fast enough to work on your > system"? This isn't a flame it's just that I don't understand why you > consider C/C++ stupid. They have their place. I work on scientific > applications and I guess I could use Perl or Python or (shudder) MATLAB > (if you can consider that a language) but I don't because they're too > slow. Where I work we have a supercomputer (currently at #18 on the top > 500) and we have applications coded in (again, shudder) FORTRAN. Why? > Because it's faster than C or C++ on supercomputers. It's better at > parallel processing. I did FORTRAN programming for 14 years before I > switched to C (yes, I'm _that_ old). I've also programmed in COBOL, > BASIC, three or four different assembly languages, Pascal, Java, you > name it. They all have their place. I just don't get this "my language > is better than your language" stuff (with the possible exception of ADA > ;-) >
Thats not what I said. Or ment at least. I said; use a high-level language for high-level operations. I'm not saying: Do computer-intensive/realtime critical operations with lisp/python/ruby/etc. Ardour consist of about 90% GUI code, if I have understood correctly. Those 90% of code could have been written in a more high-level language with garbage collectors, proper list-functions, dynamic typing and other helpful things c++ does not provide because C++ is supposed to be extremely fast, allways. Or in case not, why not? --
