Re: [LAD] State of Plugin API's

On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:39 +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> David Robillard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 01:11 +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> >> as a standard, lv2 is ages behind ladspa,
>
> > "Core" LV2 is more powerful than LADSPA. In addition, there's other
> > features you can use. Saying this is ages behind LADSPA makes no sense
> > whatsoever.
>
> dave, "powerful" is about engineering quality. a standard (even if it is
> shoddily engineered) is good if i can adhere to it and be sure my stuff
> will work somewhere else.
>
> these issues are *orthogonal*. don't pee your pants, i'm not criticising
> the engineering part.
>
> what makes a standard successful is *market* *penetration* - everybody
> and their grandma implements ladspa because it's simple. implementing
> lv2 is harder. there are good reasons for it - it's better in every
> respect, except in uptake. there is an entrance barrier to it. you can
> ignore it and piss off people who point it out, but that's not going to
> remove it.

Implementing LV2 via SLV2 is quite a bit easier than implementing LADSPA
directly. That's why I wrote it. ;)

You suggest /I/ relax, which is slightly entertaining. You're the one
running around like a chicken with its head cut off pointing out all
these supposedly catastrophic problems. What problems? I don't see any
problems. I see some things that need doing. I, and others, will get
around to doing them as we see fit, as always. There are no barriers to
doing so, thus there is no problem.

The only problem is your lack of patience.

> i'm not talking about mechanism. the mechanism is fine. i'm talking
> about the politics of getting a usable standard out there.

Politics do not write code. Period.

> the "standard" aspect of lv2 is not done yet. which is plainly evident
> from the fact that most innovative lv2 plugins that show up require
> patches to the host in order to work

So you get to redefine "standard" as you please to make your point.
Convenient. LV2 is not a "standard" until it includes a coffee maker
and a golf course as well, I suppose?

> and it takes other skills that software engineering to change that,
> which you seem to be a) unwilling to acknowledge and b) lacking.

I'm lacking? How many extensions have you authored, mouthpiece?

> hence, i'd better give up now. how a person with arguably twice my iq
> can so painstakingly kepp missing the point i was trying to make is
> mystifying. but it seems pretty pointless to rehash it all over.

I pointed out quite clearly why your points are faulty. Why anyone,
regardless of IQ, can fail to understand is, is beyond me. It is indeed
pointless to state nonsense over and over and over, it doesn't make it
any more correct.

Sometimes it's useful to continually repeat sense though, as I seemingly
have to do. Let's try that:

Problem: some features have yet to be implemented.
Solution: implement them.

That's it. Simple eh? Surely nobody disagrees on the former, that's
what this thread is about. Let's try that again, maybe it'll sink in:

Problem: some features have yet to be implemented.
Solution: implement them.

See it? Okay, one more!

Problem: some features have yet to be implemented.
Solution: implement them.

Go back up to the top and read it a few more times. Notice how all the
"social" crap you are talking about does not actually solve the problem?

Let me play psychologist and make a stab at why: you, like everyone,
sees that there are some nice features that aren't implemented yet.
However, like everyone who uses the arguments you have been, you have no
actual desire to solve the problem yourself. Therefore, you resort to
fabricating "social" problems as a reason for them not being
implemented, because this justifies your own avoidance of actually
solving the problems. Well, sorry, but I have implemented extensions,
as have many others, and can tell you from experience that there are no
such barriers. They are fabrications designed to make you feel better.

Why do I, and others who have actually done some work around this area,
not see these barriers? Because they obviously do not exist.

If you don't want to help, fine, but don't invent bullshit excuses and
claim there's some massive social problem that prevents you from doing
so. You and anyone else are more than free to sit down right now and
design and implement whatever you please. So what, exactly, is this big
social problem? There isn't one. The only "problem" is that you are
not satisfied with how quickly other volunteer developers are getting
things done. What makes anyone think they have this right is beyond me.

If you want an extension so badly but lack the expertise to do so, slide
your friendly local neighbourhood LV2 nerd some cash and have them do it
for you. Then you can complain all you like, because you have paid for
the right to do so. Otherwise, I don't suspect you'd like others
complaining that what you do in your free time isn't up to their high
expectations either.

Once more, just in case the point got lost in my ramblings:

Problem: some features have yet to be implemented.
Solution: implement them.

Stop fabricating murky nonsense to obscure this obvious point, and
things will move along much more smoothly.

-dr

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Nov 2 00:15:01 2009