[LAD] Plugin buffer size restrictions
d at drobilla.net
Sun May 27 17:19:36 UTC 2012
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:01 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> this type of clash isn't useful to anyone, and this is why i think
> david gets so upset with them - that rather than there being
> discussion that targets "how can this be done (right)?" there ends up
> being a tone of "well, this is wrong, and that is wrong, and also this
> other thing is wrong, and by the way the whole basic idea, conception
> and architecture is wrong".
> and maybe that is actually what you think of LV2, and if so you're not
> alone in that assessment and its clearly OK. its just that having
> public battles that superficially claim to be about a detail of the
> API but are really just surrogates for "this whole thing is just
> misconceived" is really pointless.
Of course, pulling that crap on a mailing list isn't news. It kind of
goes with the territory.
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, and even
contradicts itself several times in the few paragraphs I have seen (to
say nothing of how divorced from reality it is, as Paul has mentioned).
It also manages to blame aspects of almost every single piece of audio
software in existence on LV2, despite all of these things predating it
by decades (a pretty good indicator of how rational and objective this
work is). It is, in short, nonsense; a lunatic preaching his ego
stroking religion of anti-everything, not what a decent person would
expect of paid work from an "expert".
I am really just amazed that anyone would actually do something so
shameful and dishonest (and admittedly somewhat bitter that somebody
actually paid them to do so). I may be just as colourful a character on
this list, but never in a million years would I consider attaching my
name to paid "professional" work like this delusional drivel.
I'd write a rebuttal, but there's no point, and this has wasted enough
of my and everyone else's time.
That said, I don't like how one grumpy old fool gets to exploit the
balance fallacy here, so I will mention a few people who have actually
done their part and helped:
Steve Harris: Original LV2 idea, first real plugin set, etc.
Lars Luthman: Early pioneer, many experiments, lv2-c++-tools, UI and
event extensions, etc.
Nedko Arnaudov: Early pioneer, external UI extension, Zyn*, early work
on dynamic plugin control, etc
Krzysztof Foltman: Calf plugins (first fancy GUIs?), state extension,
several ad-hoc extensions (some making their way to core, more to
follow), lots of involvement in the early days
Stefano D'Angelo: dyn-manifest extension, NASPRO (bridging LADSPA, VST,
etc. to LV2), current experimental work on web UIs, etc.
Gabriel M. Beddingfield: URID extension, lots of useful feedback on the
Leonard Ritter: State extension
... and probably others I have forgotten (apologies). This is only
people who have directly contributed to the spec; there are of course,
many more who have written plugins and hosts, packaged, contributed
usefully to the list and/or wiki, and so on. Equally important work,
apologies for not mentioning all your names, but they are too numerous
to list here.
Everyone one of them awesome, having directly contributed tangible
improvements, whose valuable efforts would have been missed.
Thankfully, they are the norm, not the exception.
The ever improving functionality, quality, and hundreds (thousands?) of
plugins didn't come from nowhere, it came from an active community of
people working together to get the job done.
Keep on keepin' on, laddies. Haters gonna hate.
More information about the Linux-audio-dev