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@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@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@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