How does REAPER do it?

[sys2074]

I'm just waiting for somebody to make a legitimate definition of "bloat". Everyone says the host they like is slick and fast, and others are bloated. Why? What IS bloat? And why does it make a host worse than another?

using too many shared libraries and/or frameworks, instead of coding the needed functionality yourself. those libraries: 1. take up too much RAM, 2. are sometimes coded a lot less efficiently, therefore are slower.

Well explained! here's also an explanation on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloatware

Example:

Empty REAPER instance in Windows TaskManager: 19MB
Empty Reason instance in Windows TaskManager: 24MB
Empty Live instance in Windows TaskManager: 142MB

There! Good example of what bloatware is! Now don't tell me that all these 142MB RAM would be required for an empty host. As Reaper shows ... obviously not.

[LawrenceF]

Bloat? Could it be - just asking - that some various functions that Live allows that Reaper does not are loaded into memory for immediate use when the program launches?

[aMUSEd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or just generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users.

But even though that is a definition, who determines what falls under that definition?

How much of a larger footprint is bloat? If everything is being used by the program and is needed for some features to work, surely it's just personal preference? If an .exe file is 20MB compared to 200MB, I don't personally care. As long as the program performs well while running, the size of the .exe file means nothing. It's not like there are 3GB .exe files in the host world, are there?

As for features, that is absolutely a personal preference. Nobody can define what is used or not used by end users, can they? Is any feature universally not used by a single user?

Well like with nearly everything there is a subjective element. If I say "this curry is hot" there's bound to be someone who says it's too mild for them. It's a relative concept but to infer from that the concept has no utility seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think most people would agree that apps like Reaper or eXt are less bloated than apps like Sonar that come on dualsided DVD's these days and install lots of extras on top of the core app, which itself is not a mere 4MB and which adds stuff to various system directories, the registry etc instead of tidy enough to be capable of being run from a USB stick . That doesn't mean everyone has to agree Sonar is "bloated" - some are comfortable with that or even welcome that just as some are comfortable with the hot curry.

As for features - yes it is also a matter of preference but on the whole if an app concentrates on certain core features but allows people to pick and choose what additional features it can have (via extensions and plugins) then one could say that app was less bloated than one that installed everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to please everyone or even simply justify a higher price.

[EvilDragon]

Bloat? Could it be - just asking - that some various functions that Live allows that Reaper does not are loaded into memory for immediate use when the program launches?

That's quite a large "some" at 123 MB difference!

[LawrenceF]

I'm just not clear on exactly what some people call "extras" that are installed. Give me an example of extras being installed.

The only thing I can think of in Cubase is the instruments. Not the loops.

With that said, Reaper is leaner than most.

[sys2074]

Bloat? Could it be - just asking - that some various functions that Live allows that Reaper does not are loaded into memory for immediate use when the program launches?

Maybe but I'll bet that if the Reaper devs would add that same feature then to their product, Reaper would still consume a lot less.

It's the way how companies function: Cockos are a bunch of guys who now how to code efficiently and their outcome is because they want to create a slick audio host. Ableton (or insert other big market player here) on the other hand is focused on making money, efficiency is secondary for them.

[LawrenceF]

Fair enough. Justin is an extraordinary software developer and I suspect more talented than many and Reaper is certainly a very efficient application.

[aMUSEd]

Bloat? Could it be - just asking - that some various functions that Live allows that Reaper does not are loaded into memory for immediate use when the program launches?

Maybe but I'll bet that if the Reaper devs would add that same feature then to their product, Reaper would still consume a lot less.

It's the way how companies function: Cockos are a bunch of guys who now how to code efficiently and their outcome is because they want to create a slick audio host. Ableton (or insert other big market player here) on the other hand is focused on making money, efficiency is secondary for them.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that and although I would agree it uses more resources take note of what the wiki definition says about "or just generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users." I don't know for certain this is right but there are big differences in the function of Live compared to most hosts - it is intended as a Live host and therefore the focus is on efficiency playing back live (i.e. gapless engine etc) rather than just not using resources. Maybe this means ensuring it always has a certain minimum amount of memory to ensure gapless playback etc rather than having to dynamically adjust memory etc on the fly (after all this is why people setting up DAWS tend to allocate a fixed amount of virtual memory rather than allowing the system to adjust it dynamically). Just a thought.

[EvilDragon]

(after all this is why people setting up DAWS tend to allocate a fixed amount of virtual memory rather than allowing the system to adjust it dynamically)

Even better. I have my virtual memory turned off. Just never had any problems, and I know my HDD won't be roasting when it's not supposed to.

[aMUSEd]

(after all this is why people setting up DAWS tend to allocate a fixed amount of virtual memory rather than allowing the system to adjust it dynamically)

Even better. I have my virtual memory turned off. Just never had any problems, and I know my HDD won't be roasting when it's not supposed to.

Me too

[whyterabbyt]

It's the way how companies function: Cockos are a bunch of guys who now how to code efficiently and their outcome is because they want to create a slick audio host. Ableton (or insert other big market player here) on the other hand is focused on making money, efficiency is secondary for them.

No, its the way coders function. Some coders decide that even if there is an existing wheel, then they will reinvent it on the grounds that their version will be better than the bog-standard one.
Some coders, however, accept that using the normal wheel is viable, and has a particular set of advantages. They build the fundamental architecture of their program on top of what's available, instead of replacing it.

[eduardo_b]

Funny how things are so similar once you get past the details. Bloat is like religion...you believe what you believe for reasons that are open to question. It's part experience and part concept and part implementation.

But those who use earlier versions can tell when an application is approaching or has reached bloat status. Photoshop CS4 and CS3 are examples of what happens when the number of features has gotten so large that the program takes longer and longer to load and respond. Of course, part of this is the result of upgrading onto computers that are not state of the art. When this happens, some users simply stay with a previous version that has the features they actually need and use, and runs faster than the newer versions on the machine they have.

DAWs are just like this. Same principles apply for the same reasons.

[LiteOn]

No, its the way coders function. Some coders decide that even if there is an existing wheel, then they will reinvent it on the grounds that their version will be better than the bog-standard one.
Some coders, however, accept that using the normal wheel is viable, and has a particular set of advantages. They build the fundamental architecture of their program on top of what's available, instead of replacing it.

Exact!


Cheers,
LiteOn

[whyterabbyt]

DAWs are just like this. Same principles apply for the same reasons.

Yes. Some people decide they 'know' what has occurred and why, with nothing more than a semi-superstitious understanding of the factors involved in developing software.

[eduardo_b]

DAWs are just like this. Same principles apply for the same reasons.

Yes. Some people decide they 'know' what has occurred and why, with nothing more than a semi-superstitious understanding of the factors involved in developing software.

How many hours do you suppose it takes to code a DAW from scratch -- even a modest one?