Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Modular synths of the world, unite and take over :-)
From: Dave Griffiths (dave_AT_pawfal.org)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 18:55:37 EET
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:15:04 -0500, Paul Davis wrote
> >I think the bulk of redundant work is on standard
> >effects or modules. We don't want to define anything
> >as to how the modules work with each other, but maybe
> >draft some sort of a file that compliant programs
> >either a) convert to code and integrate into the app
> >at compile-time or b) can open as "modules" if it's a
> >modular synth.
> >
> >For example, it's hard to design a filter. At least I
> >think so. So someone else designs one and releases it
> >under _whatever_ license they want. If the license
> >fits your app, you can use some sort of tool that will
> >convert this file format to code in your language of
>
> LADSPA: its not great for "instruments", but IMHO works at precisely
> the correct level for synth modules.
>
> however, all (or nearly all) of the tools mentioned already support
> LADSPA and yet it doesn't seem to have done much to to reduce the
> redundant work that is going on on these applications.
>
> i think kai's observations in the past about how open source works in
> this kind of situation are completely on the mark. it looks
> inefficient, and it probably is, but its the way it works and if it
> didn't, open source probably wouldn't work either.
I agree with this - I program free software to try and find out how stuff
works, that's the fun for me. If I start to get concerned with things like
code reuse and effeciency of time used, it starts to feel like, well - being
at work ;)
dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 18:52:19 EET