On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Devin Anderson <devin@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Devin Anderson <devin@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious about what you might have done differently if you knew
>>> then what you know now.
>>
>> what *should* have happened was a plugin API that as many developers
>> as now use JACK would have agreed to adopt.
>
> I guess the easy thing to say here is that LV2 *could* be that API,
> but I don't see the same amount of interest in LV2 that there is in
> JACK. Maybe I'm wrong.
it was true then, and and its true now. we're developers. biting off
on JACK doesn't constrain you very much, and the extent to which it
does generally seems to be welcome. you're still writing "a program"
and you can still pretty much do whatever you want.
biting off on a given plugin API and conceding what you're writing is
"just" a plugin, along with all the potential hassles about control of
the plugin parameters via a GUI, MIDI, OSC, potentially losing access
to timeline and tempo information, etc, etc ... this is enough to
deter most people and encourage them to write JACK clients. in
addition, JACK gives you the instant "2 for 1" hit - plays nice with
others, but also plays nice alone (or least with just the server).
these are compelling reasons for a developer. they are mostly
irrelevant for most users. not completely irrelevant, and not for all
users.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jul 4 04:15:01 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 04 2011 - 04:15:01 EEST