10 Apr
2004
10 Apr
'04
1:38 p.m.
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
;-)
Jan