On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Tom Szilagyi <tomszilagyi@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On 14 January 2011 21:33, rosea.grammostola <rosea.grammostola@email-addr-hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> > Good to know, thanks for sharing. It might give other developers more
> > confidence to start coding LV2 without the fear to start a 'mission
> > impossible' and get trapped in 'spaghetti' at the end.
>
> There is nothing wrong with the LV2 docs. I don't consider myself a
> professional programmer (I'm an EE really, just need to write software
> at times), but I found it quite easy to wrap my head around it.
>
Hmm... I have to say that I noticed that the LV2 documentation has improved
alot recently, but when I first started programming LV2, I found it very
much confusing. A lot of confusion stemmed from the fact that the
connection between the "LV2 Specification" document, and what you actually
had to do to make a plugin wasn't clear. Now the website is better at
directing you to "This is how you start" sort of documents, rather than
"lv2:portspecification a lv2:urlProperty" sort of stuff. Because when I
looked at those documents, I had no idea *what* they were talking about, or
how to use any of the information they presented. I wanted to shout out *show
me the code! *And the only link to the *actual C header* was a small and
seemingly insignificant link, saying "you might also want to look at this".
Anyway, this rant is kind of useless, because the website is much improved,
at least from my perspective, although it may just be that now I understand
what it's talking about after learning through examples.
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Jan 15 00:15:07 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 15 2011 - 00:15:07 EET