How does REAPER do it?

[Brandon Ryan]

It's sad that big players don't really invest into optimizing their code. Then you get situations like on Cubase forums, where they really don't respect their customers input and bug reports. They should rot in hell for that, if you ask me.

Not so sad when you consider that it's not actually true. I know for a cold hard fact that companies do indeed spend resources on optimizing code.

[LiteOn]

Hi,

There clearly are differences in performance among DAWs. I assume it's both the code and how many services are loaded. I also know that it's not uncommon to go back to the base code and redo it for better performance and resource use...hence my question about the time involved.

I agree if code is also encompassing the superior levels of software design/architecure where the major performance decisions usually are made. And there we get into the ballpark.

Software quality isn't necessarily a function of the "code" but surely a function of age of a software generation and the number of functional extension/evolution cycles in that generation. Sure, a refactoring on the architecture level is doable all the time - but that's basically the same as making a new software from scratch. It's just like houses, the older they get the more compromises to take with respect to more modern requirements.


Cheers,
LiteOn

[whyterabbyt]

I am missing the mouse zone editor, though. Still, it will come in Reaper, too.

That's possibly another aspect of it. Its a lot easier to develop an application when you can just cherry-pick the best features of the established players. Reimplementation is easier than R&D.

[EvilDragon]

It's sad that big players don't really invest into optimizing their code. Then you get situations like on Cubase forums, where they really don't respect their customers input and bug reports. They should rot in hell for that, if you ask me.

Not so sad when you consider that it's not actually true. I know for a cold hard fact that companies do indeed spend resources on optimizing code.

Good luck then. Sonar never worked as lean as Reaper to me. But the reason is too obvious.

[fandango]

It's sad that big players don't really invest into optimizing their code. Then you get situations like on Cubase forums, where they really don't respect their customers input and bug reports. They should rot in hell for that, if you ask me.

Not so sad when you consider that it's not actually true. I know for a cold hard fact that companies do indeed spend resources on optimizing code.

If memory serves, Sonar 8.3 was an optimisation overhaul for the software (including the audio engine), amongst other things. It was free as well, iirc.

[EvilDragon]

IMHO all updates should be free. "Big" version numbers should be the only ones that need to be paid. Some companies don't even respect this.

[fandango]

Well, when you're a millionaire, I guess you can afford to make the whole app free if you wanted to...

[EvilDragon]

That is also true

[whyterabbyt]

I don't know. Does optimizing for best resource use while providing best performance represent a time consuming proposition or something that talented coders simply implement?

That's just another either/or, all/nothing hypotheses, though. Of course it consumes time; the question is how much time can be found.
Talented coders can implement better solutions faster, but if they're divas who wont document their code, they can actually slow down the progress of a project.

That was the basis for my original question. Is it cost effective to optimize in the long run?

There's no absolute answer to that. 80% of your resources can go on the last 20% of optimisation. What are your priorities?

I asked you about time needed for coding because you seem to be quite knowledgeable about software coding.

Well, Ive read enough of the project management classics to know that there arent easy yes/no answers to nebulous questions. Software development requires an awful lot in the way of definitions and specifications; to ask a question like 'how long will it take' has to be predicated the specifics of the task.

[whyterabbyt]

IMHO all updates should be free. "Big" version numbers should be the only ones that need to be paid. Some companies don't even respect this.

Ah, the tired old 'it matters what the version number is' bugbear.

[Brandon Ryan]

If memory serves, Sonar 8.3 was an optimisation overhaul for the software (including the audio engine), amongst other things. It was free as well, iirc.

Yup - your memory serves well.

[fandango]

Ah that's good. As I turned 30 I began to wonder if the old grey cells were failing me...

[eduardo_b]

Software development requires an awful lot in the way of definitions and specifications; to ask a question like 'how long will it take' has to be predicated the specifics of the task.

Okay, thanks for the straight answer. My question, I now realize, isn't answerable without specifics.

[Meffy]

Ah, the tired old 'it matters what the version number is' bugbear.

I've a dandy work-around for version-number fixation. Besides the (already required) video monitor, it calls for just a bottle of White-out (typist's correction fluid) and a Sharpie pen. :-}

[eduardo_b]

Ah, the tired old 'it matters what the version number is' bugbear.

I've a dandy work-around for version-number fixation. Besides the (already required) video monitor, it calls for just a bottle of White-out (typist's correction fluid) and a Sharpie pen. :-}

And eventually a new monitor?