[GEM-dev] Why is [hsv2rgb] implemented as an abstraction?
reduzierer at yahoo.de
Tue Dec 11 18:12:10 CET 2007
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 08:06 -0500, Chris McCormick wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 11:03:56AM +0000, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
> > Just wondering why hsv2rgb.pd (which is pretty incomprehensible) isn't a
> > compiled external. I had to write a C implementation because the Pd
> > implementation was too slow. Some rough benchmarks:
> Hi Claude,
> As the resident abstractions-over-externals obsessive, I feel I should
> put forward an argument to the contrary, just for good measure. Basically
> it goes like this: CPU is getting cheaper, but programmer time is getting
> more expensive (or put a different way; i'd rather make the computer do
> work than myself do work). My implication is that editing an abstraction
> is easier than editing & compiling an external, which could well be
> wrong, but there it is.
i highly agree with chris here. or i'd say the optimal solution would be
to have both, abstraction and external (and as frank mentioned, there is
already an external). speed is only an issue, when you do as many
operations as you do. in many (the majority of?) cases it is probably
used just to convert a value every one and then. i wouldn't want to
deal with an extra external just for doing one conversion on loadbang.
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
More information about the GEM-dev