[LAD] Fwd: Fwd: lv2 extension bugs

David Robillard d at drobilla.net
Fri Jul 29 18:39:55 UTC 2011


On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:21 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Robillard <d at drobilla.net> 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





More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list