Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] App intercomunication issues, some views. GSOUND ????
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 00:16:43 EEST
>> in the future, it hopefully won't be necessary to do this. instead,
>> you can go and look at rosegarden, muse, ardour, ecasound etc. and ask
>> "how do they do it?"
>
>Inside 90.000 lines of code ? without doc ? , without any aparent order ?
when people like jesse chappel (who also wrote the ladspa sooperlooper
plugin) can show up and within a relatively short time make major new
additions to ardour, i have better things to worry about than the
concerns you raise. there are *always* improvements to be made to code
design, but there is little point focusing on that when the more basic
challengs lie unsolved.
>and then start from there. but right now, nobody
>> really knows how to do all of this stuff unless they work at
>> digidesign, emagic, steinberg or one of the few smaller companies that
>> write such software.
>
>nobody ?
yes, i'd stand by that statement.
>>
>> by writing "small" programs first, you end up with a codebase that has
>> to constantly be radically overhauled as your expectations grow. i
>> hope that when ardour reaches version 1.0, the codebase that relates
>> to audio will not change very much at all (version 2.0 will include
>> MIDI recording+sequencing support, and so there will be much new code
>> to handle that).
>
>OK!, your ardour seem to be a good application , designed for you.
>Congratulations.
>
>But features don't seem really complex to code in any Gsound 1 based app.
>(now Gsound 0.2.1 ).
i suspect that's because you haven't actually tried coding them.
>Sincerely Paul, I think you are doing a big app, but you are doing ONE app,
>and you think everybody will use it beacouse is the best app, but perhaps
>people needs for other apps.
au contraire. if i thought that, why would i have bothered writing JACK?
>I'm working on 3 libs and 4 apps + doc, as you can understand current
>features are now really poor. After 2 years of study I'm sure this
>architecture can help to make one, or three ardours, if lad people can work
ardour is split roughly 1:2 between backend code and GUI code. no
library will make the GUI code simpler. writing "an ardour" isn't an
exercise in backend coding, though that is clearly important. writing
stuff that allows a user to manipulate a "model" and get good visual
(or other) feedback on the results is the core of it, and its not easy.
>your ardour will be the application, who substitute, Logic Audio,
>Cubase,Nuendo, Reason-Rebirth , any-trackers, pro-tools, dj-desk system, any
>synth system, and whatever audio application existing on win and mac-os, in
>any OS . ;)
i'd settle for protools, nuendo and cubase sx for linux. however,
since each of these systems has their own fans on other OS platforms,
i find it likely that the same will apply on linux. we already have
muse and rosegarden making inroads into audio at the same time as they
lay down an excellent route into MIDI. this is all good. but these
apps are also like ardour in the sense that they are "monolithic".
>Did you read / see , my doc/web ?, or simply are you explaining how good is
>your app without seeing what I'm proposing.?
yep. sorry, but i've been there and done that. i don't think you
understand what you are getting into, just as i didn't 3 years ago.
you want a simple example of something that is incredibly useful but
really hard to do with any generic design?
... tempo sync a delay plugin ...
think about it for a while. i have no idea how to make this work with
ladspa right now, but i'm thinking too.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 00:13:58 EEST