3 ms·
Why COM? Well, I hate COM in general, but it was a much better fit for this particular API than flat C functions. It comes with a bunch of C++ helper classes to
by julesrms 6y ago
Why COM? Well, I hate COM in general, but it was a much better fit for this particular API than flat C functions. It comes with a bunch of C++ helper classes to make it easy to work with, and the resulting code actually ends up looking OK.
- hctaw 6y agoIt seems odd to spend a bunch of time working on a C++ alternative for audio DSP but to rely on one of the most annoying C++ paradigms to deal with to embed it in anything useful. I don't really care how the library code looks (if the secret sauce is proprietary and closed source anyway, that presents zero value to me as a potential licensing customer!), I care how it functions. I want to script together many soul patches into a complex systems written in higher level languages. Integrating C++ dependencies is avoided because of the headache of FFI, C is quite straightforward. I suspect users like myself will need to wrap your COM API in its C-equivalent through manually written vtables regardless, which is its own minefield rather than a proper API. I hope it doesn't require the COM runtime...
- p0nce 6y agoCOM is relatively common and accepted in audio (VST3 / AAX). Usually it doesn't require the COM runtime from Win32, it's just an ABI for being able to virtually call and delete shared objects.
- pjmlp 6y agoAll modern Windows APIs since Vista are based on COM, so it isn't going away anytime soon. As does macOS/iOS driver model.