Developers: Which Free non-MS compiler should kX API support?

Discussion in 'Effects and the DSP' started by Lex Nahumury, Dec 29, 2005.

  1. Lex Nahumury

    Lex Nahumury DH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Developers: Which Free non-MS compiler should kX API support?

    From: http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?t=94965
    Please discuss preferred compiler/tools here so we can inform Eugene.

    /LeMury
     
  2. Russ

    Russ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Personally, my preferred choice would still be the MS compiler (since I have it, paid for it, and I am most familair with it) but I know this prevents many people from being able to contribute. Ideally the best choice would be to seperate the API code from any NDA related stuff, such that people could compile (not modify, just compile) the .dll themselves, for whatever compiler they want to use. Another option might be to redo the API code such that it can more easily be used with multiple compilers (i.e. no exported classes and using extern "C" linkage for the function calls, etc. so that there is no name mangling). If none of the above is do-able, I would hope that 2 versions of the API could be compiled, one for MS compilers and one for whatever free compiler people decide on. As for which free compiler, I have not used them much, but Mingw (ala Dev C++), or some other GCC variant seems to be a popular choice.

    -Russ
     
  3. Lex Nahumury

    Lex Nahumury DH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree and that is how I initialy interpreted Eugene's post.
    However on second reading I now see I could be wrong.

    So yes, if we have to choose exclusivly between MSVC and some free compiler, I would choose MSVC too.

    /LeMury
     
  4. Tiger M

    Tiger M kX user

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    me three;)
     
  5. Lex Nahumury

    Lex Nahumury DH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I think it's safe to say we can all agree on that one.

    Still, besides MSVC I would like to see support for at least one free compiler.
    If that is do-able, as Russ already pointed out, I'd also prefer MinGW.
     
  6. Russ

    Russ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just thought I would point out that the only people that have replied to this thread thus far, do not even need this, as we all have MSVC.

    This is for people who would like to be able to develop plugins (etc) for kX, using C++, but currently cannot do so because they do not have, or have some objection to, using MSVC. Now is the time to repond if you have any preference as to what compiler should be supported.
     
  7. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well - I guess, no sense doing any work for a few, whom it seems, have came and past.

    Oh well - I thought thered be more development motion if KX was compiled more free-ly.
     
  8. Russ

    Russ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I did not necessarliy mean you or ROBSCIX, or people like you guys (i.e. people who would like to use C++ to develop for kX, but are just starting out in C++ programming and thus probably do not have a compiler preference as of yet. (although it still might be good to know how much interest there really is in this.)). I am just surprised that we have not heard from any people that have some experience with C++ and that uses one of the free compilers, etc. I still think it is a good idea, but I could understand it if Eugene decided not to spend all the time doing it because of an apparent lack of interest (and it is understandable why it has not been done previously).
     
  9. Lex Nahumury

    Lex Nahumury DH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, however, over the years there have been quite a few questions regarding non-MSVC support.
    kX's MFC dependancy has always played a role in this matter of course.

    Let's face it, from a programmers point of view,
    there is so little going on in the C++ kxl extension part.
    Just some controls that send parameters to the hw whenever they feel like it.
    No sync, no sample accuracy or any time critical demanding stuff.

    So I can't imagine someone actualy buying MSVC+MFC just to write a simple kX Plugin.
    Any other compiler can handle that just as well.

    Well, the MFC dependancy barrier will be broken when I release the non-MFC KXGUI
    Framework i'm working on, and I'll contact Eugene if he would/could recompile kxapi with minGW32.
    Then people can explore kX programming for free even if it means only a few!

    /LeMury
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2006
  10. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Russ:
    COMPLETELY understandable - now that I understand it.. hehe

    and wouldnt blame him a bit either - Im sure its a bit of labor to do so - then theres NEW bugs prolly at that point..More work...
    But if open maybe more would contribute ??
    Lack of response - see below...

    LeMury; This is great news?

    and I completely agree - the lack of response *could* be from the fact that; 'would be' regulars/plugin developers seen $$ just to make plugins - walked away and never return (or do so, very infrequently).
     

Share This Page

visited