10 Apr
2004
10 Apr
'04
12:42 p.m.
Samuel Abels:
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#id27…
"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.
<snip>
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. 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.
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.
--
1:18 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Samuel Abels:
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#id27…
"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.
<snip>
C++ is crippled?!
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. 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.
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.
1:42 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 06:14, will(a)malefactor.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Kjetil
Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Yeah, what he said!
Samuel Abels:
<snip>
C++ is crippled?!
> 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#id27…
"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.
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.
1:38 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
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
2:18 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 16:36, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
You mentioned Python in the same sentence with "non-crippled language",
which clearly proofs your good sense of humor. ;)
That set aside, here are some of my reasons:
* Audio applications are usually very CPU intensive. Having a complete
screen full of different canvases updated all the time *is* CPU
intensive. I am not saying that it is impossible to create a GUI fast
enough with higher level languages, I am just saying that the difference
is significant enough that many users may suffer from it.
* Often, there are great advantages in having the whole application use
only one language. This has advantages in both, maintainance and
performance as well (converting data types is expencive).
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. Yes, this might start a flame-war, but I really think
people
should be aware of the C/C++-stupidness.
This is simply wrong. C++ is way faster in many cases. Also, writing a
GTK2 GUI in C++ is not slower than using a high level language. In fact,
the API is almost identical in most cases. And this is from someone who
has created several GTK2 based projects using Perl OOP with GTK2.
-Samuel
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Samuel Abels | http://www.debain.org |
| spam ad debain dod org | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
------------------------------------------------------
9:40 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> wrote:
Why on earth use C++? Use a desent high-level
non-crippled language like
lisp, python or ruby.
I'm always curious about language advocacy posts like this. In this instance
I'd be particularly interested to know if you have ever coded a large
application (100,000 loc) in andy of these languages? If you have, I'd
then be curious to know if you had take the given lisp/python/ruby
functionality and ported it to C or C++ to compare the performance,
memory footprint and robustness.
If you haven't done this then I don't you're qualified to make the sort of
suggestions that you made and even if you have and lisp/python/ruby does
seem better (unlikely) then it still doesn't mean that the original poster
would be better off with one of these languages.
I should also point out that I really like Python and use it all the time
for small scipts and tools but I would never dream of using it for anything
large (>10,000 loc) or timing critical.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"He who writes the code gets to choose his license, and nobody
else gets to complain" -- Linus Torvalds
7567
days inactive
7567
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Jan Depner -
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen -
Richard Bown -
Samuel Abels -
will＠malefactor.org