steff3

Is there a C++ development environment for Max-externals on Mac? I know that there is Flext - but that is what I used to use, but it is not my deal to compile development platforms and stuff like that. I just want/need something that works. (XCODE based?)

Of course it should be Intellimac(UB) ready. That is the main concern, as this is what broke the Flext stuff for me.

the library needs to be halfway efficient, so Java is not an option ....

I know that it will be some effort to make that transition from Flext code, but with Apple's changes every now and then and the possible changes that will come with Max5 I think that is the smartest and most secure thing to do.

Of course it should be Intellimac(UB) ready. That is the main concern, as this is what broke the Flext stuff for me. 

c-development-environment-for-max-externals

https://cycling74.com/story/2005/10/5/82341/3928

on the first glance it looks pretty c-ish .... (not really eager to leave object oriented programming or work with pseudo object-oriented programming)

Even though the Max API is C you can fairly easy mix in C++. Check this

recent thread with example by Graham Wakefield.

https://cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&goto=99272&rid=0&S=c8f24cb49ca113a3e1a6a1f3c3213616&srch=coding+in+c%2B%2B#msg_99272

> on the first glance it looks pretty c-ish .... (not really eager to leave

> object oriented programming or work with pseudo object-oriented programming)

Even though the Max API is C you can fairly easy mix in C++. Check this
recent thread with example by Graham Wakefield.

On 6/15/07, Steff  wrote:
>
>
> >>
> Is this what you are looking for?
> >>
>
> thanks, I will have a look .....
>
> on the first glance it looks pretty c-ish .... (not really eager to leave
> object oriented programming or work with pseudo object-oriented programming)
>
> but thanks ...
>
> best
>

Quote: steff3 wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 15:56

----------------------------------------------------

> on the first glance it looks pretty c-ish .... (not really eager to leave object oriented programming or work with pseudo object-oriented programming)

Actually, there's a lot to said for learning to apply OO design techniques in PLs that are not natively OO.

I see that many CS programs are teaching C++-flavored OO as the One True Religion, but a bit of critical distance is usually helpful. I've seen too many OTRs: COBOL, FORTRAN, LISP, PL/I, Gee Whiz, Pascal, C, C++, Java...

When I began programming Max externals, I was most fluent in Pascal. I could have bucked the tide, massaged the .h files, and continued. But in the long term, it's been much more efficient to go with the flow and use C. After all, a PL is just a tool. Not a religion.

Quote: steff3 wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 15:56
----------------------------------------------------
> on the first glance it looks pretty c-ish .... (not really eager to leave object oriented programming or work with pseudo object-oriented programming)
----------------------------------------------------

Actually, there's a lot to said for learning to apply OO design techniques in PLs that are not natively OO. 

I see that many CS programs are teaching C++-flavored OO as the One True Religion, but a bit of critical distance is usually helpful. I've seen too many OTRs: COBOL, FORTRAN, LISP, PL/I, Gee Whiz, Pascal, C, C++, Java... 

But in the long term, it's been much more efficient to go with the flow and use C. After all, a PL is just a tool. Not a religion.

Well, at University we needed to familiarize with C, C++ and Java.

personally for me the OO approach seems much clearer and more useful. I mean - Max is in a way an object oriented environment, isn't it. Why we use Max and not CSound ?

I have a small library with about 50 externals, 100 functions, one base-class, 4 derived classes on the first layer and the about 50 children of the 4 classes from the first layer. to me OO features (or at least I only know them from 00) like overloading etc. are pretty important for 'clean'/'logical' programming (I know, others think differently) - and as programming Max-externals for me is no fun at all but a necessity - I do not want to mess around with something like C (and I am pretty sure that C is a messy PL). I know that it is a bit more efficient, but well, if it was about efficiency one should better program it from the ground .....

Java would be great - but this library has to operate at a ms-interval and with tons of operations - so Java is not really an alternative.

>>Actually, there's a lot to said for learning to apply OO design techniques in PLs that are not natively OO.

do not really understand that sentence - but, if one is a programmer and is savvy, I am sure there is a lot one can do - I am not a programmer, do not want to get one, just need my functionality and performance - so I need a reasonable environment.

I know, milage varies, but to me and my knowledge of programming it seems not useful to try to write anything in a non-OO language.

>>
But in the long term, it's been much more efficient to go with the flow and use C. After all, a PL is just a tool. Not a religion.
>>

Well, at University we needed to familiarize with C, C++ and Java. 

do not really understand that sentence - but, if one is a programmer and is savvy, I am sure there is a lot one can do - I am not a programmer, do not want to get one, just need my functionality and performance - so I need a reasonable environment. 

C++ development environment for Max-externals?