Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] defending simplicity
From: Kai Vehmanen (kaiv_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 22:50:30 EEST
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
>> 1. It's not about genericity, it's about focus.
> usually the generic solution is better. actually I have experienced
You don't have to tell me that. In my own audio apps, almost everything is
done though generic methods - sample format is specified using C++
templates, effects accept variable channel-count, interleaved and
noninterleaved, etc etc. But this is a different thing altogether. Now we
are trying to find the lowest common denominator, so that LADSPA will be a
good choice for as many linux audio projects as possible.
When we use a simple approach like mono-float streams, there's a good
chance that all programs implement it in the same way. Every step we take
beyond the simple case brings more possibilities. I've repeated this many
times, but it's much easier to build complex setups from simple
components than to split complex setups into pieces and rebuild.
>> 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.
So hosts get complex. That's only shifting the problem around. And why
can't you just recompile? 32bit, 64bit, 128bit, no changes in code needed.
Oh well, I'm once again ready to give up. I've written one LADSPA
implementation, and it won't be a problem to update it to match the
new LADSPA API proposed by Benno. Whatever suits you people best...;)
-- Kai Vehmanen <k_AT_eca.cx> ---------------- CS, University of Turku . . audio software for linux ... http://www.eca.cx . . armchair-tunes mp3/wav/ra .. http://www.wakkanet.fi/sculpcave .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 00:34:47 EEST