On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 20:27:02 UTC, Warwick wrote:
> It's kind of like saying you can climb a mountain on a bycicle if you get of an carry it on the bits that are too steep.
> *snip*
> The real story is how easy D makes it to achieve that.

Indeed... the beauty of a bike is you can get off and walk with it. It is a lot easier to push a bike up a mountain than a car!

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 21:05:24 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 20:27:02 UTC, Warwick wrote:
>> It's kind of like saying you can climb a mountain on a bycicle if you get of an carry it on the bits that are too steep.
>> *snip*
>> The real story is how easy D makes it to achieve that.
>
> Indeed... the beauty of a bike is you can get off and walk with it. It is a lot easier to push a bike up a mountain than a car!

What is the better tool to bring to the top of a mountain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yan1SekLB5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvvsjstveM

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 21:30:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> What is the better tool to bring to the top of a mountain?

Only maniacs go down mountains. The fun part is the ascent... the descent is an exceedingly painful journey through the ultimate experience in grueling terror, no matter how you try to do it. Even *walking* down a mountain yields knee pain...

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 21:39:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 21:30:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> What is the better tool to bring to the top of a mountain?
>
> Only maniacs go down mountains. The fun part is the ascent... the descent is an exceedingly painful journey through the ultimate experience in grueling terror, no matter how you try to do it. Even *walking* down a mountain yields knee pain...

Right, and at that point you really wish you didn't bring the bike along and had spent some money on linear typed footwear instead.

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 18:09:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 17:12:05 UTC, Jonny wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 15:48:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
>>>> I don't really have a point to prove, but I'm really tired with people arguing that a language with GC can't possibly do real-time. It's not like you are unallowed to optimize.
>>>
>>> What if someone wants to use your plugin live? You think it is acceptable to have latency and jitter? What about glitches because your GC decides to run at the same time as all the other GC's?
>>
>> I quoted both things because I think you missed the important part that he did, in fact, optimize the real time parts to avoid latency.
>
> He did not miss it. He simply wanted to do the internet equivalent of putting his balls on the table to show how much of a dominant male he is.


I feel sorry for you. You are filled with hatred. I'm sorry if your life sucks, but no reason to blame me, put the blame squarely where it goes... on yourself.

If you actually did any RT music for a living, it would be a big issue, instead, you cowardly make your pathetic remarks behind a keyboard and have no clue about the real issues involved.

I hope you get things figured out before you die, else you've wasted your life ;/

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 01:31:22 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 17:12:05 UTC, Jonny wrote:
>>
>> You have no idea what you are talking about! It is mentalities like yours that cause headaches for musicians and engineers who work with RT audio.
>>
>> Do you realize that even 5 ms of jitter can be felt by the listener and musician as being off? 5 ms of latency can be felt and 20ms is unacceptable.
>
> "jitter" is not "latency", you don't have "5 ms" of jitter.
>

um, come on, you sit here and preach that I don't know what I'm talking about yet you can't even be right on the first sentence?

jitter is the standard deviation of the timings. Do you know what standard deviation is? It is the square root of the sum of the squares...

Now, if you are so intelligent as you think you are, you can see by simple dimensional analysis that you get the same unit as what you measured with.

While, this doesn't prove you don't have a clue about jitter, my guess is, you don't.

Believe me, jitter is a big deal. If you spent as much time doing music as you did programming, you'd realize that. Go spend 5 years learning to play the drums properly then come back and we'll do some tests and see if you believe the same thing.


Also, if you simply removed the GC from D so it doesn't get called, then whats the point? Anyone can do that(more or less). If you used manual memory management, then whats the point? C++ already does that and does RT audio already. We know D can be made to do this already.

If you pause the GC so it doesn't get called a lot, then whats the point? If you run your software for 3 hours, if it going to survive or glitch?

Do you know what "design for the worse case scenario" means? While RT audio isn't life and death, it's treated that why by the professional community.

Just because it's acceptable to you to define RT audio in some way that justifies it for you does not mean it's RT audio. I'm not saying your software isn't RT, but if you use the GC in any way what so ever, you don't have RT audio... regardless if it behaves like RT 99.99% percent. (there is something about guaranteed *maximum* latency that you have to deal with)

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:18:13 UTC, Jonny wrote:
> While, this doesn't prove you don't have a clue about jitter, my guess is, you don't.

Yes, jitter is bad and worse than latency, but OS-X AudioUnits run at a high priority thread where you cannot do system calls, malloc or run a GC. So the GC statements are misleading. It is unfortunately common in these forums to overstate what D features are good for. It's just the usual fanboism superiority complex, it is an annoying aspect of the D culture, I agree. Just don't let it get to you, it is present in just about every thread. :-)

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:18:13 UTC, Jonny wrote:
> um, come on, you sit here and preach that I don't know what I'm talking about yet you can't even be right on the first sentence?
>
> jitter is the standard deviation of the timings. Do you know what standard deviation is? It is the square root of the sum of the squares...

Jitter is any deviation in, or displacement of, the signal pulses in a high-frequency digital signal. The deviation can be in terms of amplitude, phase timing or the width of the signal pulse.

The units of jitter measurement are picoseconds peak-to-peak (ps p-p), rms, and percent of the unit interval (UI).

See google.

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 05:59:19 UTC, Jonny wrote:
> I feel sorry for you. You are filled with hatred. I'm sorry if your life sucks, but no reason to blame me, put the blame squarely where it goes... on yourself.
>
> If you actually did any RT music for a living, it would be a big issue, instead, you cowardly make your pathetic remarks behind a keyboard and have no clue about the real issues involved.
>
> I hope you get things figured out before you die, else you've wasted your life ;/

I see that if that RT music thing doesn't pan out for you, you can always become a psychiatrist. You are a man a many talents, congrats.

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 09:12:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> I see that if that RT music thing doesn't pan out for you, you can always become a psychiatrist. You are a man a many talents, congrats.

Maybe you and Guillaume Piolat should try to tone down your french rhetorics? I don't think Ponce's product benefits from this (or from announcing that he is using a GC.).