Samuel Abels: > On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 16:36, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote: > > > So, in essence, gtkmm does it in a more C++ way. :-) (But please let us > > > not make this a flame; may everyone be free to choose whatever toolkit > > > he likes best. ;) ) > > > > Then my question becomes: > > > > Why on earth use C++? Use a desent high-level non-crippled language like > > lisp, python or ruby. > > You mentioned Python in the same sentence with "non-crippled language", > which clearly proofs your good sense of humor. ;) > > That set aside, here are some of my reasons: > > * Audio applications are usually very CPU intensive. Having a complete > screen full of different canvases updated all the time *is* CPU > intensive. I am not saying that it is impossible to create a GUI fast > enough with higher level languages, I am just saying that the difference > is significant enough that many users may suffer from it. > > * Often, there are great advantages in having the whole application use > only one language. This has advantages in both, maintainance and > performance as well (converting data types is expencive). > > > Yes, this might start a flame-war, but I really think people > > should be aware of the C/C++-stupidness. > > This is simply wrong. C++ is way faster in many cases. Also, writing a > GTK2 GUI in C++ is not slower than using a high level language. In fact, > the API is almost identical in most cases. And this is from someone who > has created several GTK2 based projects using Perl OOP with GTK2. >
Okey, these are good points. However, I should just wish everyone knew lisp, then the world would be a better place. :) --
