Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] defending simplicity
From: Erik Steffl (esteffl_AT_pbi.net)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 21:07:36 EEST
Kai Vehmanen wrote:
>
> Here's a few random thoughts about simplicity:
>
> 1. It's not about genericity, it's about focus.
>
> Anyone remember the old Unix guide-line - "make your program do
> one thing well"? Of course we could go on forever making the
> API generic. Everything is just a stream of bytes, that shouldn't
> be a suprise to anyone. Why don't we just define a generic
> API for transmitting the bytes and a single format string. I
> want to write a Tetris for LADSPA.
usually the generic solution is better. actually I have experienced
several times the situation when I was re-writing my code to be more
generic. I don't remember re-writing code to make it more specific...
the fact that everything is just stream of bytes should be used.
> 2. KISS - Keep It Small and Simple
that's a good idea, however don't want to be locked in by arbitrary
chosen limits. also, most of the overhead can be shifted to host, making
it possible for plug-in to be simple.
most of the stuff that can be specified at compile time and most of
the stuff that's being discussed right now should be specified at run
time. after all, there is a reason it's being discussed - often there is
no best solution.
the overhead of allowing different data types and inteleaved as well
as multi-port processing etc. is fairly small. and you don't have to use
it all in plug-in. it's just host that should support all of them.
> 3. Obscure coding
that's a good point. usually the more generic the less obscure... I
mean, you want a tool that does one thing and is good at it, but there
is no reason to have arbitrary limits (like 640 kB of RAM or 32 bit
samples only or whatever else). most of the obscurity is caused by
trying to work around these limits (do you guys remember/know the
small/compact/large model for earlier intel platforms?)
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 22:10:50 EEST