12 Apr
2005
12 Apr
'05
3:53 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:16:39AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:14:58 -0400, Dave Phillips
wrote:
if you want vsts then use xfst.
it works out of the box.
builds with a make.
but remember: using vst is using the dark side.
and therefore xfst will by stay underground.
its only distributed via irc/mail !!!
i am tired of people using my programs without feedback !
the only thing i get feedback for is this stupid vst stuff.
dssi needs jacktransport awareness.
i will not waste dev-time badly needed for jack-midi and distributed
jack on vst !
3. The dssi-vst bridge is still unknown to me
because of issues with
RH9, and I've not had time to test it on FC3. But is there any general
feeling that dssi-vst is a better route to take, at least for the normal
user ? Btw, I like the DSSI API, but it seems slow in catching on with
developers. Is that perception correct ?
Well, we dont really have any basis for comparison. There aren't legions
of instrument developers clamoring for a plugin API, so theres no way to
tell it its OK or not yet.
I'm not particularly worried because LADSPA took some time ot tkae off,
but it is one of the best plugin APIs IMNSHO. OSC seems to be gaining
popularity, and thats a selling point of DSSI.
- Steve
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language