On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 06:08:31PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> 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? The nice thing about C++ is that it is 'low level' when you need that, and that by writing a few classes on top of this you can get _exactly_ the type of high level abstraction that you need, without the ballast of a high level language that is designed to provide everything to everybody. This also applies to GUI code. You need only a few relatively simple classes on top of Xlib that take care of event polling and delivery, X11 resource management (an area where most high-level languages break down), and a set of widgets. Everything else will probably need a general purpose canvas and low level drawing operations anyway, and these are as easy to do directly in X than in any toolkit or high level language that I know of, or even easier. What you get is a high level interface, blazingly fast performance, and easy integration with the time-critical code that is typical for any audio application. Try to do that with Tcl/Tk, Python or whatever. Just my 2 Eurocents, of course. -- FA
