18 Mar
2003
18 Mar
'03
1:04 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:15:04 -0500, Paul Davis wrote
I agree with this - I program free software to try and find out how stuff
works, that's the fun for me. If I start to get concerned with things like
code reuse and effeciency of time used, it starts to feel like, well - being
at work ;)
dave
I think the
bulk of redundant work is on standard
effects or modules. We don't want to define anything
as to how the modules work with each other, but maybe
draft some sort of a file that compliant programs
either a) convert to code and integrate into the app
at compile-time or b) can open as "modules" if it's a
modular synth.
For example, it's hard to design a filter. At least I
think so. So someone else designs one and releases it
under _whatever_ license they want. If the license
fits your app, you can use some sort of tool that will
convert this file format to code in your language of
LADSPA: its not great for "instruments", but IMHO works at precisely
the correct level for synth modules.
however, all (or nearly all) of the tools mentioned already support
LADSPA and yet it doesn't seem to have done much to to reduce the
redundant work that is going on on these applications.
i think kai's observations in the past about how open source works in
this kind of situation are completely on the mark. it looks
inefficient, and it probably is, but its the way it works and if it
didn't, open source probably wouldn't work either.