4 Feb
2005
4 Feb
'05
10:33 a.m.
august wrote:
on another note, I started to rewrite the readanysf~ code. the goal for the new version are as follows: 1.) direct c++ code for pd. no more flext.
what are the advantages of such an approach ?
or rather, what are the big disadvantages of using flext ? i do not use it myself (since Gem has its own C++ framework and my rest is done in C), so my ideas of flext might be clouded. the only reason to not use it that is see, is an additional dependency. isn't it possible to link statically against flext, so the dependency would only exist at compile time ? or is the flext-api highly unstable (so that it is a pain to upgrade from one version of flext to the next ?)
mfg.btr.xs IOhannes