[linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?

Jan Depner eviltwin69 at cableone.net
Sat Apr 10 15:35:47 UTC 2004

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 09:36, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> 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


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list