VST development recommendations for experienced C++ coder?

[Kylotan]

All this video stuff is very interesting but doesn't help me much.

Often there are middle grounds between cheap/shit existing code, writing all the code yourself, and paying large sums for industry-leading frameworks. Is there one for VSTs, beyond wdl-ol? If not, that's okay, but I thought here would be the place to know the answer.

[Dozius]

This is a personal project, not a professional one

If that is the case, why not use JUCE under the GPL? No splash screen and no up front cost.

[stratum]

All this video stuff is very interesting but doesn't help me much.

I would vote for juce, but not for technical reasons. I have spent some time trying to have a product in the audio field and what I have learnt is that the most valueable thing you have is time. Use juce and if you have something interesting that can sell, then you'll have finances to pay for the juce license. If not, your product is not successful anyway, and if it's not a product but just a hobby, then it doesn't really matter regardless of what you choose.

[stratum]

I know about erlang as well
Securty-relevant stuff be won't be C code, don't worry.
Their aproach is really like: define the input of the system, define the output of the system and than generate code. Which can be validated ect pp..

That's not what I have seen. It's more like: You dont have ANY stuff that you can use to shoot yourself in the foot (global variables, member variables, function parameters that can be modified, and synchronization primitives. What has remained? hmm nothing but a functional language like LISP), and an inter process communication mechanism and a failure handling policy. That's erlang as I have seen it. I don't know how one would define input/output and generate code. Such systems exist in the aviation field I guess, but erlang is not one of those logic proof / verification systems, as far as I can see. Perhaps there are more advanced ways of using it.

but I think we are hijacking that thread

err, I guess we should stop somewhere

[Kylotan]

This is a personal project, not a professional one

If that is the case, why not use JUCE under the GPL? No splash screen and no up front cost.

The first reason was that I couldn't find it under that licence. The one currently up at Github - https://github.com/WeAreROLI/JUCE - has a rather concerning clause about them tracking the users of my app, which is not great.

Secondly, it would be tough to sell a plugin that is under the GPL, as anyone else could just compile their own version and offer it for free. So it's not a great incentive.

So, I'll wait and see if anyone has any other suggestions.

[Miles1981]

The one on github has a GPL version, you can use it like that and you can also sell a plugin under the GPL, just as RedHat sells their Linux distribution.
You just need to make the source code available to whoever _bought_ your plugin.

[Dozius]

The first reason was that I couldn't find it under that licence. The one currently up at Github - https://github.com/WeAreROLI/JUCE - has a rather concerning clause about them tracking the users of my app, which is not great.

Huh, that's a new one to me. Did a bit of digging, seems to be new in JUCE 5. However, that obviously wouldn't apply to the GPL version, since you could just remove any telemetry code you wanted.

I found a thread on the JUCE forum about this new clause. The telemetry is only enforced for free license users.

https://forum.juce.com/t/we-may-track-t ... e/22051/28

[stratum]

Here's a way to play the devil's advocate: Remove the telemetry code and just put the splash screen they want. If your plugin becomes commercially successful, then you can buy a license. If not, you can later claim that it was an open source project after all, and release the source code if anybody asks. The idea that only the people who have paid for the plugin has the right to do so, was news to me, though.

[Kylotan]

Neither their special licence nor the GPL are a good fit for me. But I respect their right to impose whatever licence they want on their work. It just means that I will choose to use something else.

[BertKoor]

Man, just have a play with it (prove the concept) and see whether you get on with juce at all. Postpone the buying decision.

[Kylotan]

There is no buying decision: $700 is too much.

[Miles1981]

Here's a way to play the devil's advocate: Remove the telemetry code and just put the splash screen they want. If your plugin becomes commercially successful, then you can buy a license. If not, you can later claim that it was an open source project after all, and release the source code if anybody asks. The idea that only the people who have paid for the plugin has the right to do so, was news to me, though.

Don't think you are allowed to remove the telemetry code, except if you go GPL.

But they for OP, what's the issue with the splash screen? Have you at least seen it once? It's not even a splash screen in the usual sense, it's just a small icon on the lower right of you plugin for 5s. Really not a big deal.

[emtear]

I'm very familiar with C++ (as a game developer by day) so I don't mind that part; I just need something to speed development along and help with some or all of the boring stuff - FFTs, UI, MIDI input event handling, etc.

Any suggestions?

I never understood this logic. One would think an experienced C++ coder:

1. Would be able to program this boring stuff with no problem.
2. Would have plenty of money from their "day job".
3. Would understand that you want to be paid for making someone elses work easier.

My suggestion would be to get a coffee and start coding.

Matt

[No_Use]

There's also this, no personal experience with it though.

http://www.willpirkle.com/rackafx/

[emtear]

double post.