[LAD] minimal LV2

[fons at kokkinizita.net]

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:08:55PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:

> people who don't understand any field of formal jargon say the same
> thing about that jargon. these descriptions are formal jargon. you're
> not meant to "just get them" by just looking at them. they are also
> not there to convey meaning to a human, although an interested human
> could discover something from them.

As a mathematician I'm familiar with formalisms and abstractions 
hat are some orders of magnitude more complex than the one at hand.
But at least in that field they do have a meaning and a purpose.

You say these things 'are not there to convey meaning to a human'.
OK. Before it was stated that the software reading them is not
supposed to follow these links and get any information from them.
I and assume that the same software is not capable of 'understanding'
them spontaneously either, or with some help of the Holy Spirit.
So what purpose do these things have if they are not meant for a
human reader and irrelevant to any software ?

If in the end something that is described in this convoluted way
as e.g. a 'port label' ends up to be displayed in the right place, 
probably as some text besides a visual representation of a port,
then that is possible *only* because of one reason:

*** the programmer who wrote the software doing this did
*** understand the meaning of the English word 'label',
*** and wrote his code based on that understanding.

All the rest is, IMHO, pure BS.

Ciao,


-- 
FA

O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !