[PD] C++ for reusable dsp lib - or better use C?

[Andy Farnell]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:58:14AM +0100, katja wrote:

> In my (not so huge) coding experience, I've always noticed that code
> typing is the least time consuming aspect of a dsp project. To figure
> out a good concept takes longer. Testing and bug fixing takes longer.
> Optimization takes longer. I've once written an optimized FFT lib (in
> C). It took me a month if I remember well, and that was not because of
> all the code typing.


+1 

For me, learning the subject and making good design desisions,
then learning languages are the biggest overheads, measured in
years or decades. Then debugging, correcting mistakes, optimising,
packaging... these are things that take days or weeks.
Once an idea is set in motion, actual coding seems to happen in 
sprints of a few dozen hours, and is largely independent of the
language.

Shortcuts made because a language is compact and elegant
only pay off where you write millions of lines
of code. Some might properly aruge that you make fewer 
mistakes with an elegant language, but there is much more to 
elegance than compactness. In fact elegance, in the eye of
the beholder, is quite subjective. C++ is a beautifully rich
language that is very concept heavy, a far more mature tool 
than I need to do most DSP tasks.