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