Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fwd: lv2 extension bugs

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:21 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Robillard <d@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I think the site should be reworked to be as
> > friendly as possible, to make finding appropriate implementations as
> > easy as possible, and all that, but declaring an "official SDK" or
> > whatever just strikes me as silly. You're basically asking if I think
> > modularity is bad. No, I very emphatically do not think that at all. ;)
>
> I /personally/ agree that an "official SDK" is silly... be it LV2 or
> Android or Qt or MeeGo or whatever. I'm a developer... why would I
> want to use some mickey-mouse SDK? Give me the headers... and a
> chroot... and emacs... and a beer!
>
> However, these mickey-mouse SDK's /do/ foster adaptation of the
> technology. There's a whole generation of ADHD Devs who are looking
> for some kind of gooey instant gratification. "Oooo, an Eclipse
> plug-in! Shiny!"
>
> ...and there's the fact that LV2 really /is/
> just-a-little-too-abstract for your average dev.
>
> So, while the idea of an LV2 SDK disgusts me (personally)... Olivier
> is right that it would accelerate developer acceptance.

http://drobilla.net/docs/lilv/

I don't think that's too abstract for your average dev. It's a library
API. Certainly your average dev can use a library.

Would renaming this "The LV2 SDK(R)(TM)" actually improve anything?

The focus here is wrong. I'm sure there *are* things we can do to ease
adoption even further. Effort into finding and improving those things
would certainly be great. Documentation and a more friendly site, for
example.

Maybe some of those things people tend to _associate with_ an "official
SDK", but this is not the same as needing an official SDK. We are not
Steinberg. Discussing arbitrary silly labels is a waste of time.

Tackling actual problems that impede adoption, though, certainly not a
waste of time. By all means, let's find those things, make a list on
the Wiki, and tackle them.

... Though, that said, I think hand-wavey discussions about "adoption"
and whatever are mostly hot air in general. Developers who have an
actual interest in implementing things will do so, and have done so. I
think the hypothetical situation of a developer who is genuinely about
to do the work being deterred by there being no "official SDK" or
whatever little aesthetic details is a fantasy. I fully support any
effort to make things more friendly at face value, but... whatever,
really. Less talk, more rock.

-dr

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Jul 30 00:15:02 2011