[LAD] Writing a library?
darren.landrum at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jul 23 15:24:52 UTC 2008
Julien Claassen wrote:
> Hi Darren!
> I'd still suggest on going linuxsampler. There's a basic framework
> already. I'm not the skillful programmer myself, otherwise I'd like to
> help. But reasons for my point:
> 1. LS has already MIDI and audio drivers working.
> 2. LS offers a clear structure and an API to go by.
> 3. LS is in use already.
> 4. It already has two GUIs and is probably getting more.
> 5. MY OWN HERE: It's useable for blind people as well with relative ease.
> 6. I think the people there are a helpful and nice crowd.
> So six nice reasons to go that way. Perhaps you can also rely on code
> already written, like take a look and produce similar code in parts and
> there are people who know the framework and the matter. and it won't be
> another standalone app to maintain and adapt to every novation in the
> audio-world, like audio/MIDI driver APIs changing etc...
> One of the delicate remarks: If you don't get along well with
> LinuxSampler's license, you could make your "engine" a seperate package
> and say it's LGPL. Is tht correct? Some backup. No licensing discussion
> just a true or false statement. PLEASE! :-)
> Kindest regards
I'm not a CS person, I'm a math and engineering person. I truly and
honestly believe that it will be easier for me to start from scratch
than to try to wrap my head around someone else's codebase.
That being said, I mentioned starting with a code framework that would
allow the creation of any kind of synth or sampler, not just the one I
have in mind (which is inspired by the upcoming Omnisphere more than
anything else). I may not be a CS guy, but I do understand the value of
planning in advance.
Nevertheless, anyone who quotes John Miles in his sig must be a cool
person, so I'll certainly wait a bit for other ideas and advice before
barreling off on my own. Thank you for the reply.
-- Darren Landrum
More information about the Linux-audio-dev