[gmpi] Re: Reqs 5, 6, 11 for debate

  • From: "Vincent Burel" <vincent.burel@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:50:40 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff McClintock" <jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:42 AM
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Reqs 5, 6, 11 for debate


> > i don't know which of these is true, if either. one way or another, i
> > have this impression that win/mac developers don't look favorably upon
> > the "standard C" API. have i got that wrong?
>
> I tend to use ANSI libraries if posible, want to make porting to Linux
easy.
> I don't know what the common pratice is, anyone?

it depends on the usage of course but many professional development prefer
to have their own "standard API" interfacing directly the native platform
API and when they port to an other platform,  they just have to port their
own API interface.
That's sure that "C" ANSI lib for File, Thread, Memory, are not very used
(especially the FILE functions) because in these matter the standard "C"
function cannot fit all the features proposed by the O/S...

> I guess a host-provided file selector dialog would make sense though.

yes, i think also it make sens.

for the memory, and other basic features  usually provided by the O/S, i
don't think a real interest to let the host re-provide that.

VB


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2003