27 May
2012
27 May
'12
9:56 p.m.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 01:19:36PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:
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,
The buffer size issue is the only one mentioned in the excerpt
from my report that I quoted. Everything else, good or bad, about
LV2 that I may have written or not written is just the product of
your imagination. Which I can assure yout gets its mostly wrong -
my overall conclusion was not negative at all.
Judging from the (quite limited) feedback I got on my report,
what you present as an inevitable quality of the whole LV2
project - things are 'designed' iteratively and as the result
of a lot of social interaction - is what scared off my customer.
This is not what you need if you want to launch a product in a
determined time and commit yourself to support it. An idealist
may do that, a company wanting to make a profit and survive for
some time won't.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)