Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] defending simplicity
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 18:56:37 EEST
Did anyone even bother to read the subject line in this message ? It
says:
defending simplicity
Lets all say it again, slowly
d e f e n d i n g s i m p l i c i t y
Now lets move on to some quoted text:
>LADSPA1 will be simple, but LADSPA2 will follow soon (hopefully) and
>will have many nice features, including full LADSPA1 backwards
>compatibility , (that means LADSPA2 hosts will be able to run LADSPA1
>plugins) (hopefully) full VST1 AND VST2 wrapping, that means, there
>will be VST headerfiles and a library which will allow allow to
>recomplie VST plugins to LADSPA2 plugins which can then run without
>any performance penalty under a LADSPA2 host.
Benno, sorry my friend, but you're on a different planet than the one
I am on. We don't even LADSPA yet, and you're now talking about
LADSPA2, libraries for VST which are not needed, all kinds of stuff
which is just *crazy*.
Right now, we don't have LADSPA, and discussing the future in this way
strikes me as
1) making a mockery of the development process
2) creates uncertainty in the minds of anyone considering
adding plugin support
Furthermore, suggesting all this stuff about how to handle VST is
premature. There are perhaps 3 LADSPA "toy" plugins in existence right
now, versus at least a few hundred serious ones for VST. Talking about
how an upstart API should host the leader in the field strikes me as
completely upside down. If we want to talk about VST (which I do), the
discussion should be on how it could be extended in a 100% compatible
way to provide support for things like multiple data types, spectral
data, and so forth, as well as how to deal with Steinberg's licensing
arrangement and requirements.
Richard himself said some time ago that if we had VST for Linux, there
would be no need for LADSPA. Please keep this in mind.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 20:27:41 EEST