Re: [LAD] Specification issues in open systems

On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 22:06 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> First, why should a complete instrument, taking in
> MIDI and producing audio, be a plugin in Rosegarden
> or any other sequencer ? It would be much more useful
> as a standalone app, and probably *a lot* easier to
> develop. I wouldn't think for even a fraction of a
> second to write Aeolus as a plugin - it would be an
> exercise in self-torture of the third degree.

Fons, you know I broadly agree with you, but a substantial fraction of
the world's software instrument developers appear to feel otherwise. I
can't think of a single major "out-of-the-box" software instrument for
windows or OS X that hasn't been implemented as a plugin. the things
that are only stand-alone apps are generally "synthesis environments" or
have associated h/w (examples: kyma/capybara, max/msp, reaktor, and so
forth, along with all the music-N derived synthesis languages).

i haven't heard a single commercial developer complain about being
forced to do things as a plugin, only about the details of it.

--p

ps. i think that even reaktor may be available as a plugin, and max/msp
patches can be implemented as plugins by combining them with a core max
runtime library.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Sep 28 00:15:05 2008