Tony Ostinato wrote: so its no suprise that someone who can program so many features into such a small install might also be good at coding for cpu efficiency.
Is Raper even considerably tighter coded than e.g. Sonar? I highly doubt it.
Who can tell?
First both do not have the same number of features, e.g. Sonar has extensive notation features - how much lines of code does that take compared to e.g. the one which is needed to stream audio?
And then it seems many of the program-functions which Reaper acccesses via external plugins are contained directly in the Sonar-executable itself (I'm talking about plugin such as reaper_explorer.dll, reaper_midi.dll, reaper_wave.dll, etc.)
Then Sonar has meanwhile replaced a lot of the generic graphic-functions which Windows itself provides by dedicated graphics-code - I don't know how much difference this makes - oh, and while we're talking about graphics: Reaper's GUI mainly consists of external files as well.
So all in all it's not easy to say if Reaper is more efficiently coded than Sonar - I doubt that even Justin or Cakewalk's programmers themselves could really tell this without looking at the other's code.
Therefor I suggest to lay this topic at rest once and for all. Why not talk about real features, bugs, etc. instead - Reaper has enough to offer in regards to this (if you must ask: yes, both actually
) - it doesn't need to rely on this ridiculous pseudo-argument.Just to make sure: this post isn't directed at you personally, Tony.
