[fluid-dev] fluid_sfont_iteration_start()

2007-04-20 Thread Marcus Planet
I have enjoyed the discussion of Fluidsynth directions. If I may throw out another newb question: My program gathers a list of presets for each soundfont it loads using fluid_sfont_iteration_start(sfont); and similar functions. The way I get these functions to compile is to take "fluid_sfont.

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Miguel Lobo
Hi Josh, Its unfortunate that C and C++ have to be so divided in the world of programming. I agree, especially since C++ is 99% a superset of C and all the new features are completely optional. In the past the ABI unstability and incompatibility was a real problem for C++ (although IMO much

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Josh Green
Hello Miguel, On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 20:50 +0200, Miguel Lobo wrote: > Well then, since it seems there is some consensus on continuing > Fluidsynth development in C, I'll go on with my project as a fork with > a different name. Hope you guys don't mind me announcing public > availability of my pro

Re: Fwd: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Josh Green
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:42 +0200, Miguel Lobo wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Glad to hear you like the idea! > I like the general idea of doing some overhaul like activity :) I'm not completely sure at this point if C++/QMake is the best direction for "FluidSynth" though. I imagine its a platform you

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Topher Cyll
I think if anything writing in C++ will make it easier to write bindings for other languages, since those other languages are usually object-oriented nowadays and their concepts are closer to C++ than to C. I understand what you're getting at, but at least in my experience it doesn't bear out.

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Miguel Lobo
Well then, since it seems there is some consensus on continuing Fluidsynth development in C, I'll go on with my project as a fork with a different name. Hope you guys don't mind me announcing public availability of my project in this list (when and if that happens) and asking questions about Flui

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Josh Green
Having read over the responses of other users, I wanted to write a bit more on my thoughts, since I think I was a bit hasty in my response to Miguel concerning his changes. I think the main thing that FluidSynth lacks currently is simply active development. The project has been barely limping alo

Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth Trac web site

2007-04-20 Thread Josh Green
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 00:09 +0200, Antoine Schmitt wrote: > Hello Josh, > nice work on Trac ! > > I just added the fluidXtra to the application page. It is a Adobe > Director Xtra giving access to FluidSynth's features. It is very > successful in the Director community. It has been alive for q

Fwd: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Miguel Lobo
Damn it, I forgot to do "Reply to All". Sorry about the dupe mail Josh. -- Forwarded message -- From: Miguel Lobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Apr 20, 2007 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes To: Josh Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Josh, Glad to hear you like the ide

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Josh Green
Hello Miguel, On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 00:31 +0200, Miguel Lobo wrote: > Hi list, > > Since there's been a surge in the activity of this list recently, I > thought I'd let you know about some work I've been doing on > Fluidsynth, although it is by no means finished. > > Now, the changes I've done a

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Dave Serls
At the risk of rampant me-too-ism, I'll have to agree violently with Paul Millar. Not that there's any danger of my contributing significant code to the project. I'm just a (very) old guy who can read and understand the C, and it's OOP leanings without the potential arcana of C++. I also think t

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Miguel Lobo
Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments. OOP is very powerful programming methodology, facilitating concepts like polymorphism. However, there seems to be a mass amnesia that other languages both exist and also work. OOP (and C++) code is not prima facie better than code written in a non-OOP langua

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Paul Millar
Hi Miguel, Its always good to hear ideas about alternative approaches. I've some comments I've included below. On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:31, Miguel Lobo wrote: >- Translating from C to C++, using classes and templates to increase >code reuse where possible. OOP is very powerful prog

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

2007-04-20 Thread Miguel Lobo
Hi Marc, Thanks for your comments. I do believe, however, that a C++ Fluidsynth may not be quite as easy to absorb and apply as a C Fluidsynth. Once the C++ API is mostly stable I would like to provide C bindings to it. They should be fairly easy to generate from the C++ headers, although to