Oops, failed to hit 'replay to all' again. :)
Also, I'll attach a sample of the process from Activity Monitor.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rich E <reakinator(a)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [PD] C++ for reusable dsp lib - or better use C?
To: Mathieu Bouchard <matju(a)artengine.ca>
Any idea why Pd-Extended is using 3x cpu than vanilla in OS X? When I
leave it idle with dsp off, my fans hum..
cheers,
Rich
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Rich E <reakinator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (To throw in a different take). I definitely like C++ more for ease of
> interface. Templated math functions and overloaded operators are just too
> nice, the code looks so much better (at a user level).
>
> There are also plenty of audio languages written in C++ - SuperCollider,
> ZenGarden (which is coincidentally a rewrite of pd-core in C++), and Faust
> are the first three that come to mind. For graphics, there is both
> openFrameworks and Cinder, which each use very different features of the
> language.
>
> In the end, I think you should use the language with the features you wish
> to use. While you could build an OO language on top of C, it is
> essentially a procedural language, so why bother when that is what C++ is
> for?
>
> - rich
>