Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] My 2 cents (contd.)
From: David Slomin (dgslomin_AT_CS.Princeton.EDU)
Date: ti elo 10 1999 - 14:21:33 EDT
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Adam Zygmunt wrote:
> 5. The KISS principle. Make something that works and is useful before
> adding all sorts of incomplete bits and pieces of your grand killer app. A
> plug-in architecture, I think, is a good example of this. It would be one
> thing if we had anything to plug them into, but right now it's putting the
> cart before the horse. Another example is the heavy interest in
> interprocess communication and simultaneous use of soundcards.
> These are noble goals, but should be attacked after there's working
> software.
I do agree that all architecture and no functionality is a useless
combination. However, I wouldn't recommend that people throw away all
plans they might have for making some sort of architecture. Many existing
programs, especially the supposedly well-designed commercial ones, are
crippled because they are not built upon an expandable architecture.
Retrofitting a plugin API or multiple soundcard support takes much more
work than designing it right the first time.
> One thing I've noticed is that there's very little development of much
> Linux audio software. Programs get released at alpha-versions, then they
> get debugged, then they get minor updates. What you see on first release
> is basically what you're going to get. I haven't seen many major feature
> enhancements or interface improvements that would signify a version 2.0.
> How many sound editors have we already seen come and go that have
> something in the README that goes basically like "I've decided to write
> this editor because there are no good ones out there. It's still in alpha
> stage right now, but it'll be great. I have it ready for plug-ins and
> everything. It'll be the (insert useful application here) of sound..."?
I think this all stems from the "scratch what itches" school of open
source development. Put a month's worth of work into a program, and often
the original itch might not seem anywhere near as bad as the
implementation issues you discovered when you tried to fix it. Once the
original developer gives up, it's unfortunately not always the case that
someone will step in to continue the effort. Maybe we should start a
centralized "open source adoption agency" for projects that were orphaned
by their initial developers. Anybody think that this might work?
Div.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST