5 ms·

Oddly, I love everything about this except the Introjuicer, which basically Yet Another XML Based Build Tool. Quote from the author: When I first decided

Oddly, I love everything about this except the Introjuicer, which basically Yet Another XML Based Build Tool. Quote from the author: When I first decided to build the introjucer, my first approach was also to use cmake, but on investigating, it really was far simpler to just cut out the middle-man. Dang~ Looks like I won't be using it after all; nothing I love less than learning new build systems.

lukaszdk 13y ago
I've used JUCE professionally for almost 2 years now and I find the introjucer to be a very poor substitute for CMake. It is all GUI based and hardwired to a single XML file with predefined settings, so there just is not a lot of flexibility for setting up more complex projects nor sharing settings across projects. Even the things that introjucer does support, it does not always do well, like icon support or keeping up with the latest iOS changes to Xcode for instance. The general problem with JUCE is that is just a too ambitious project for one man and feels like a "well executed hobby" library instead of a "professional production" library. There are a lot of inconsistencies and bugs that you quickly run into when you dig deep enough into the library. Issues are fixed and introduced on a daily basis, you have to be very careful when updating the latest "release" (which seem quite random) as your existing code could break. https://github.com/julianstorer/JUCE/commits/master https://github.com/julianstorer/JUCE/commits/master That being said, I think the price for a commercial license of JUCE is a steal if you are working with C++ audio/DSP programming and it will save you a lot of time up front. You just have to keep in mind that you will probably need to invest time in patching/extending JUCE due to the fact that only one guy is maintaining it and he only has so much time to work on it every day.
julesrms 13y ago
Well, I designed it to make my own life easier, and if it's useful to other people, then great! Personally I couldn't live without it now, it saves me a huge amount of time in managing projects, but obviously people's mileage will vary.. But something thing about the design of the codebase is that it doesn't need a fancy build system - you can include everything in a project by just compiling a handful of cpps that wrap up all the code into module-sized chunks, so if you do want to use juce in some other tool, it should be very easy to do.
fxtentacle 13y ago
yeah, i dislike the introjucer too. however, you usually need it precisely once to set up the initial projects for each platform. after that, i never touch the introjucer again but manage my projects by hand.
foxhill 13y ago
in his defence, cmake is awful. it is my least favourite of all the build systems.

lukaszdk 13y ago

I've used JUCE professionally for almost 2 years now and I find the introjucer to be a very poor substitute for CMake. It is all GUI based and hardwired to a single XML file with predefined settings, so there just is not a lot of flexibility for setting up more complex projects nor sharing settings across projects. Even the things that introjucer does support, it does not always do well, like icon support or keeping up with the latest iOS changes to Xcode for instance. The general problem with JUCE is that is just a too ambitious project for one man and feels like a "well executed hobby" library instead of a "professional production" library. There are a lot of inconsistencies and bugs that you quickly run into when you dig deep enough into the library. Issues are fixed and introduced on a daily basis, you have to be very careful when updating the latest "release" (which seem quite random) as your existing code could break. https://github.com/julianstorer/JUCE/commits/master https://github.com/julianstorer/JUCE/commits/master That being said, I think the price for a commercial license of JUCE is a steal if you are working with C++ audio/DSP programming and it will save you a lot of time up front. You just have to keep in mind that you will probably need to invest time in patching/extending JUCE due to the fact that only one guy is maintaining it and he only has so much time to work on it every day.

julesrms 13y ago

Well, I designed it to make my own life easier, and if it's useful to other people, then great! Personally I couldn't live without it now, it saves me a huge amount of time in managing projects, but obviously people's mileage will vary.. But something thing about the design of the codebase is that it doesn't need a fancy build system - you can include everything in a project by just compiling a handful of cpps that wrap up all the code into module-sized chunks, so if you do want to use juce in some other tool, it should be very easy to do.

fxtentacle 13y ago

yeah, i dislike the introjucer too. however, you usually need it precisely once to set up the initial projects for each platform. after that, i never touch the introjucer again but manage my projects by hand.

foxhill 13y ago

in his defence, cmake is awful. it is my least favourite of all the build systems.