[music-dsp] C++ performance

[Thomas Strathmann]

On 10/29/10 11:54 , Theo Verelst wrote:
> I´d rather have some good manuals from a non-programmer point of view
> with libraries of pro standing than the so many-th C++ coding scheme..

What's your problem with Scheme? Many people use ECMAscript which at 
heart is a bastardized version of Scheme. Besides it's a good, 
relatively clean impure functional language. It's strict by default, it 
can be lazy, what's not to like?

> I´m a proponent of openness in programming like I promoted graphs (with
> bwise), without the use of some secret code to unlock understanding a
> bunch of C++ classes, though I agree they can have some use. I mean,
> unless the source is open, most vacuum cleaners come with more relevant
> technical data in their manual than a lot of software!

I don't understand this paragraph. Where is the secret code to unlock 
the understanding of C++ classes? The compiler's implementation? The 
runtime? The operating system? The firmware of the chips on your 
computer's motherboard? Why exactly is your tool more open or has less 
hidden secrets than any given (FLOSS) software? Does the user (in the 
good old-fashioned sense, someone who "only" uses software, does not 
read it's source code, does not hack around if something does not seem 
to work like he imagined, etc.) care about this level of technical 
information?

I mean: I'm all for a return to architectures like the Lisp machine 
where you can inspect and modify everything at runtime (including 
"kernel" drivers) and it's all written in basically the same language. 
What proponents of the open source movement call open is not really a 
step forward when you think of what has been achieved in the past, but I 
guess we're already way off-topic on this list. I always thought the 
discussion whether C++ could be used for serious programming (i.e. 
including low-level performance critical stuff) was over for at least 10 
years now.

	Thomas