14 Dec
2002
14 Dec
'02
9:04 p.m.
On Sunday 15 December 2002 01.49, Steve Harris wrote:
Well, as long as the compiler generates a clean C interface, any
language is fine for plugin implementations.
Speaking of which, does anyone hack LADSPA plugins in C++, or other
languages?
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:19:08 +0100, David Olofson
wrote:
No, but I've heard that its not really c++ underneath. I'm always
worried about looking at things like that incase I even want to
implement something similar. I think its better to knwo its a (IPR)
clean implementation.
Yeah, that's probably a good idea. (Not that we'd be very likely to
copy that part anyway... :-)
Yes, that
was my conclusion too. Its much cleaner than c++, but
its pretty slow. I'm quite supprised that Apple went for it for
DSP code.
OTOH, have you looked at how the VST host/plugin interface is
actually implemented? Pretty "interesting". :-) (And here we
worry about function call overhead...) Seriously
though, I think a plugin API of this kind *needing* C++
would suggest that there's something wrong with the design. It
shouldn't be that complex.
I agree. Sometime its nice to have OO contructs inside plugins
though, eg. filters are very clean if implemented with OO.