hi marius, > I also encourage you to go on with nova. I did not test it much (and > also don't know about the internals). but for me the reason, why you > should go on is, that pd is limited to a single processor architecture > and nova probably is not (true???). miller said on the pd conf, that if > the multi processor architecture will succeed, he would have to write a > total new program. I don't know if that is really true, but it was like > an alarm bell.
well, nova is designed as a multi-threaded system, but the computation of the audio is still running in a single thread ... i have been thinking about ways to split the nested dsp chains to multiple cores, and some ideas in my mind, how one could implement it, but no actual code ... actually, splitting the dsp chain to several cores was my proposal for last year's google summer of code, but neither clam nor the iem were interested :/ the only benefit you have at the moment is that everything except the audio like dsp graph sorting or object instantiation can be computed on multiple cpus ... pd is designed completely synchronous, for me it was easier to write a new program than try to make pd thread-safe and asynchronous ... but if even miller says, that he would have to write a new program, i won't contradict :P cheers, tim -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 96771783 http://tim.klingt.org A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on. William S. Burroughs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ nova-dev mailing list [email protected] http://klingt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nova-dev http://tim.klingt.org/nova
