[linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
will at malefactor.org
will at malefactor.org
Sat Apr 10 11:14:54 UTC 2004
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> Samuel Abels:
> > > > As nice as Ardour may be, I personaly still prefer the interfaces of
> > > > modern UI toolkits, in combination with a nice Object Oriented language
> > > > (aka C++ :) ).
> > >
> > > If you want to write C++, why do you want GTK??? Use a C++-toolkit like Qt.
> > Despite the fact that this is often discussed as a matter of religion, I
> > prefer gtkmm because it fits better into the GNOME environment.
> > Also, this is from the gtkmm-documentation:
> > http://www.murrayc.com/murray/talks/2002/GUADEC3/notes/html/index.html#id2759245
> > "QT originates from a time when C++ was not standardised or well
> > supported by compilers. Its design today is still based upon the choices
> > available at that time, so it does not play well with more up-to-date
> > code. Development of QT is still effectively closed - There is still no
> > public development mailing list, and TrollTech have the normal corporate
> > conservatism. As an open-source project, its design would have been
> > improved through public debate, and it would have been possible to
> > jettison the baggage.
> > 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. 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.
C++ is crippled?!
> 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.
Should people have to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware all
the time because programmers want to use the new slow-ass
resource-hogging Scripting Language Of The Day to write their apps?
Because they didn't want to "waste time?"
> Yes, this might start a flame-war, but I really think people
> should be aware of the C/C++-stupidness.
Too late, I hereby flame you.
More information about the Linux-audio-dev