: 
: (snip)
: > If you guys want to move to C++, I am out of this area; suppose I
: > could go back to astronomy
: 
: Whoa! Panic, panic, panic! Red alert!

My 0.02$ :

I would defy anyone that has looked to the code and tried to do something
with it to think more than five minutesabout moving it to C++... I surely
wouldn't.

Cheers,

Marc.

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Marc Resibois wrote:
> 
> My 0.02$ :
> 
> I would defy anyone that has looked to the code and tried to do something
> with it to think more than five minutesabout moving it to C++... I surely
> wouldn't.
> 
> 
Yes, after cleaning things up a bit last night, it began to look that way.
When I mentioned C++, I hadn't yet realized that the Makefile (at least
for Linux) was set up not to emit most warnings, including the ones about 
missing prototypes. gcc gives quite a
different picture now :-).

But there still seems to be things that can be cleaned up.  For examples,
many functions are not even declared, and many of the prototypes are right
in the calling functions, rather than being in a header having the same
name as the c file. 

Larry

--  Larry Troxler  --  lt@westnet.com  --  Patterson, NY USA  --
  

>I would defy anyone that has looked to the code and tried to do  
something
>with it to think more than five minutesabout moving it to C++... I  
surely
>wouldn't.


I agree, Marc: the Csound code is clearly C code, not C++ in  
conception or
implementation. If someone wants to use an object-oriented language  
(my cynic says that for most people, "object-oriented" should read:  
"sexy/new") for synthesis, they would do a lot better to look at:

1) D. Jaffe's/J.O.Smith's MusicKit for NeXT. (In an unjustly  
forgotten language: Objective-C, which, by the way pre-dates C++,  
I've been told. I think it's forgotten because the syntax was based  
on Smalltalk (YEAH!), not on trying to look like C: I think C++ was  
written so old C programmers could say "oh, yeah, I can write that  
Object stuff: see here's my C++ code..." 'Nuff said...)

2) Kyma - Smalltalk, 'da grandaddy of O-O languages! :-) I wish *I*  
could afford a Kyma system RIGHT NOW!! (maybe later,  
Kurt/Carla...).

3) Stephen Pope's MODE (again, Smalltalk).

4) Perry Cook's C++ synth toolkit: This one should pick up  
admirers: it's *clearly*
object-oriented in structure/approach, and is simple, looks easy to  
extend.


Don't fantasize about a Csound re-write that will not happen: I  
think the extensions
to Csound that are already going into place (as far as I know) are  
the correct direction
for Csound: Inclusion of more/better opcodes, DSP assembly  
implementations,
but not a complete re-write of the program's A.P.I., fer cryin' out loud!

Well, just my thoughts...I'm sure there are those who would rather  
I keep them to myself...
but, hey, what's the internet for, after all?

Take Care, my csound companions.
And happy synthesising!

CharlieB
baker@charlieb.com
http://www.charlieb.com

IF the Mac NeXT thing works (I will not hold me breath though) Objective 
C should be back again....

Michael

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Charles
Baker wrote:

> 
> >I would defy anyone that has looked to the code and tried to do  
> something
> >with it to think more than five minutesabout moving it to C++... I  
> surely
> >wouldn't.
> 
> 
> I agree, Marc: the Csound code is clearly C code, not C++ in  
> conception or
> implementation. If someone wants to use an object-oriented language  
> (my cynic says that for most people, "object-oriented" should read:  
> "sexy/new") for synthesis, they would do a lot better to look at:
> 
> 1) D. Jaffe's/J.O.Smith's MusicKit for NeXT. (In an unjustly  
> forgotten language: Objective-C, which, by the way pre-dates C++,  
> I've been told. I think it's forgotten because the syntax was based  
> on Smalltalk (YEAH!), not on trying to look like C: I think C++ was  
> written so old C programmers could say "oh, yeah, I can write that  
> Object stuff: see here's my C++ code..." 'Nuff said...)
> 
> 2) Kyma - Smalltalk, 'da grandaddy of O-O languages! :-) I wish *I*  
> could afford a Kyma system RIGHT NOW!! (maybe later,  
> Kurt/Carla...).
> 
> 3) Stephen Pope's MODE (again, Smalltalk).
> 
> 4) Perry Cook's C++ synth toolkit: This one should pick up  
> admirers: it's *clearly*
> object-oriented in structure/approach, and is simple, looks easy to  
> extend.
> 
> 
> Don't fantasize about a Csound re-write that will not happen: I  
> think the extensions
> to Csound that are already going into place (as far as I know) are  
> the correct direction
> for Csound: Inclusion of more/better opcodes, DSP assembly  
> implementations,
> but not a complete re-write of the program's A.P.I., fer cryin' out loud!
> 
> Well, just my thoughts...I'm sure there are those who would rather  
> I keep them to myself...
> but, hey, what's the internet for, after all?
> 
> Take Care, my csound companions.
> And happy synthesising!
> 
> CharlieB
> baker@charlieb.com
> http://www.charlieb.com
>