[chuck-users] Anyone else running ChucK dual-core in 64-bit mode?
gewang at CS.Princeton.EDU
Sat Apr 28 17:06:29 EDT 2007
>> I asked a friend who does a lot of C++ work to take a brief look at
>> He shook his head sadly at the use of macros instead of inline
>> functions, the use of casts to obliterate type safety, of #define's
>> instead of typedefs, and the obscuring of the likelihood that ->data is
>> a struct. He said, basically, this is C, not C++, regardless of what
>> the file extension says. I poked around some more and it looks like a
>> lot of the Ugen code was lifted from another, older project-- maybe
>> that was C code?
These are fair criticisms in general, but sometimes we do have our own
reasons for implementing things the way we do. In other instances, we
probably should adopt better practices. In the end, it's just how our
warped minds work. Our goal isn't necessarily to make C++ happy, but
rather to make ChucK users happy (and fitter, and more productive).
>> I'd be willing to do the gruntwork of search-and-replacing code, if
>> someone who knows what they're doing wants to tell me pretty much
>> exactly what to do. If nobody jumps up to do that over the next day or
>> two, it'd probably be a better use of time to start learning CSound
>> instead, and maybe have another look at ChucK in a few years if anyone
>> gets it 64-bit safe by then.
I think it's gonna take a system-wide evaluation/fixing/testing to make
things robustly 64-bit. Until then it's hard to say what needs to be
done. We are fully planning to do that at some future point. For now,
is it possible to compile ChucK in 32-bit mode under linux (similar to
the 64-bit Apple G5)?
> Ironically, I got interested in ChucK because CSound seemed a very
> kludgy way to do audio programming. - Oh well, there's always
> SuperCollider ;)
We think it's a good idea to learn as many languages as possible.
Different tools tailored for different tasks!
More information about the chuck-users