At 12:15 AM 2/15/97 -0800, Charles Baker wrote:
>I agree, Marc: the Csound code is clearly C code, not C++ in  
>conception or
>implementation. 

I have no idea what you could mean you say something is either C or C++ in
conception. As for implementation, I agree, it's fairly obvious that CSound
was written in C :-). 

And I agree now that rewriting CSound entirely from scratch in C++ would
have questionable value at this point. And the point appears to be moot
since some CSound platforms can't run C++ compilers yet.

>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:

Uhh, the term "object-oriented" is "sexy/new", but the concept isn't. Think
"modularization". It's what programmers have hopefully been doing all along.
It's just that some languages have features to make the modularization more
apparent and explicit.

Also, you seem to be equating C++ with OOP. Not always true. There's several
areas where using C++ features can be helpfull, without using "objects".

>
>1) D. Jaffe's/J.O.Smith's MusicKit for NeXT. 

I haven't looked at this because I understand that it needs a DSP card. Is
this true?

>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...)

Huh? I've used two revisions of a MIDI library (cmidi). The first was in C,
and the second was built on the first, but also rewritten in C++. I found
that the second edition was much easier for me to quickly understand and use.

>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.

I don't recall this one. Do you have a URL for it?

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