On Sunday 15 December 2002 01.49, Steve Harris wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:19:08 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > > 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...) > > 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... :-) > > 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. 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 ---
