On 02/22/2011 10:12 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> Maybe you don't care. Fine. You're obviously not the person to be
compelling argument, but not totally true. i'm not really disagreeing
with your earlier statements, but i think there are some interesting
aspects to the old greybearded unix wizard approach that fons apparently
here's a bunch of software that uses static, totally non-cross-platform
makefiles that won't work out-of-the-box on 90% of all architectures.
but they are dead easy to fix.
it uses a custom x11 toolkit, custom thread library wrapper, and other
idiosyncrasies. but it doesn't depend on sixteen other packages. which
actually makes the stuff quite portable to osx, if you are willing to
run x11 on top of it, without going through dependency hell.
it has one heck of a large userbase, and some parts are considered
reference implementations in their respective fields.
it also tends to just work.
i guess the argument is grand-unified-abstraction-meta-api vs.
potentially limited but _focused_ software.
you can use a rack full of kickass midi gear with crossbars, mappers,
generic controllers, whatnot. or you can have a hot soldering iron at
the ready on top of your organ at all times and just rewire it as needed :)
the former approach will impose fewer limitations. but the latter allows
you to make some noise right now.
both are very valid imho.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list