Re: [LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 01:19:36PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:
 
> However, doing it for pay is professionally dishonest. When you are
> paid to report on something as an expert, you are supposed to set a
> higher bar for yourself than mailing list trolls. While the buffer size
> analysis is fine (as expected, since this is something the author
> *actually* knows something about), the conclusions drawn about the API
> itself are simply wrong and serve only to illustrate a fundamental lack
> of understanding about the most basic principles of the thing,

The buffer size issue is the only one mentioned in the excerpt
from my report that I quoted. Everything else, good or bad, about
LV2 that I may have written or not written is just the product of
your imagination. Which I can assure yout gets its mostly wrong -
my overall conclusion was not negative at all.

Judging from the (quite limited) feedback I got on my report,
what you present as an inevitable quality of the whole LV2
project - things are 'designed' iteratively and as the result
of a lot of social interaction - is what scared off my customer.
This is not what you need if you want to launch a product in a
determined time and commit yourself to support it. An idealist
may do that, a company wanting to make a profit and survive for
some time won't.

Ciao,

-- 
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev