I'd take a look at JUCE if I were you. It'll instantly create templates for audio plug-ins or hosts, making your job much easier. Also it's written in C++, the entire source is available, and it doesn't tend to over-complicate things, so it makes a good reference to see how different things can be accomplished in C++. Cross platform too, which is otherwise a very ugly can of worms. Just look at the current state of platform schism; Win VST, Win x64 VST, OSX VST, OSX x64 VST, OSX AU, OSX x64 AU. That's the MINIMUM platforms that are expected for a plug-in these days. JUCE will take all that off that your hands and let you concentrate on the code that actually does the work. The "business logic".

RTAS too, if you can get them to answer your request for developer status.

I just wish it did 64 bit samples. Not yet. All samples in JUCE are currently "hard wired" as 32 bit floats.

I'd recommend you avoid any C++ books written before the C++11 standard. A lot of their advice will be non-idiomatic or outright wrong.

For example, Effective C++ used to be the first book I'd recommend to anybody but until Meyers updates it I'd advise against it.

I've had a quick (...) look at it, which took longer than expected because it's aimed at Visual Studio on Windows, and doesn't play quite as nicely with Code::Blocks - and also doesn't seem to compile at all on Mingw, but then I was lost by the 3rd error. I need to start on something much smaller, that lets me just hook into the minimal aspect at a time.

I'm also not so worried about just the 'business logic' as I need to understand how the rest works - that's just the way I am, and the main reason I dislike frameworks and large libraries. I really can't work with too much 'black magic' - Visual Studio is a great example of this. I need to start from first principles, and work all the way up.

But then, I'm not running to a timescales, or trying to write software to make a living - I'm coding for fun



I'm not entirely sure that's fair - I know what you're saying, but I already know OOP and architecture, and whilst there are obviously a fair few idiomatic changes in 11, I'm not convinced most of them will render the 'old' way wrong, per se. Just not preferred. Let's see how many compilers actually support it all, for a start

Also, as I'm only writing for myself, I don't need to be academically accurate, and I need to be able to read and integrate with 'old' C++, probably for a long time.

Having said that, I do have some books relevant to C++11, and will obviously be using things like nullptr (quick glance suggests this) and other beneficial aspects wherever possible. I likely won't use ranged for loops as much as some people (I don't use them in Java a lot of the time - they're slower) and I will certainly be doing my best over time to learn the new options.

One should never discard history as being outdated or irrelevant - there's far more wisdom within it than new ideas, and it's the foundation on which everything is built

Thank you again, for your thoughts and opinions.

have you looked into cockos iplug? it also handles 64 bit samples (all your dsp as doubles), which Admiral Quality has mentioned.