Ableton Forum

That makes me so jealous, when I am looking at my current company ! That looks like a really great enviroment for developer. Almost to good to be true

Hopefully you still hire when I am done with my apprenticeship

If I was not gainfully employed and happily married -- no brainer.

rs

Can you folks move onto C# at somepoint, for some application or other, so I have some cause to send in my CV?

Ed J wrote:Can you folks move onto C# at somepoint, for some application or other, so I have some cause to send in my CV?

We OSX users wouldn't like that much now, would we?

sherman wrote:

Ed J wrote:Can you folks move onto C# at somepoint, for some application or other, so I have some cause to send in my CV?

We OSX users wouldn't like that much now, would we?

Mono.

In C#, you'd need like 8 cores to run a 8 tracks set wouldn't you ?

Nah, it's pretty fast these days, although it'd suck for interfacing with audio equipment, not close enough to the machine!

I think it can't compare with C++ in terms of speed. Didn't it was bad though, but for processor intensive applications like live, I don't think it's a good idea ....

dinaiz wrote:I think it can't compare with C++ in terms of speed. Didn't it was bad though, but for processor intensive applications like live, I don't think it's a good idea ....

I think you'd be surprised, I always assumed it was slower but the optimisations the compiler puts into the code somehow compensate for the whole virtual runtime thingy.

Check out http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000838.html theres a comparison chart about halfway down the article.

Ed J wrote:

dinaiz wrote:I think it can't compare with C++ in terms of speed. Didn't it was bad though, but for processor intensive applications like live, I don't think it's a good idea ....

I think you'd be surprised, I always assumed it was slower but the optimisations the compiler puts into the code somehow compensate for the whole virtual runtime thingy.

Check out http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000838.html theres a comparison chart about halfway down the article.

OK, no worries I'm open minded. At least, C# seems to be way faster than Java

dinaiz wrote:

Ed J wrote:

dinaiz wrote:I think it can't compare with C++ in terms of speed. Didn't it was bad though, but for processor intensive applications like live, I don't think it's a good idea ....

I think you'd be surprised, I always assumed it was slower but the optimisations the compiler puts into the code somehow compensate for the whole virtual runtime thingy.

Check out http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000838.html theres a comparison chart about halfway down the article.

OK, no worries I'm open minded. At least, C# seems to be way faster than Java

Let's not start this...

mmm...useful..

OK, no worries I'm open minded. At least, C# seems to be way faster than Java

Let's not start this... [/quote]

Just said that to be nice to him ;o)

Pfff I applied for that job, but I have not been taken

sherman wrote:

dinaiz wrote:

OK, no worries I'm open minded. At least, C# seems to be way faster than Java

Let's not start this...

Just said that to be nice to him ;o)

Pfff I applied for that job, but I have not been taken