Re: [LAU] Questions about LV2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: David Robillard <d@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 5:29 pm

--089e0122e7eed18b4104dcd93465
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:10 AM, David Robillard wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 13:01 -0700, J. Liles wrote:

Fair enough except for the last sentence. The point of this thread is that
for some people, it is at least the end of the road. We're talking about
freshly developed, 100% free software plugins can't function without their
custom GUI. This is not about some legacy thing, or some bridge to JUCE.
This is what has come out of the technology, and I don't expect it to stop.
We'll just end up with a situation where half of LV2 plugins only work in
QTractor and Ardour and users don't really understand why other programs
won't/can't support them.

An API *is* by its nature legislation, David. And when your legislation is
full of loopholes what you end up with is usually very different than what
you originally had in mind.

--089e0122e7eed18b4104dcd93465
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:10 AM, David Robillard =
<d@drobilla.net&=
gt; wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 13:01 -0700, J. Liles =
wrote:
[...]

s
br>

Meh, the facility is genuinely useful for certain things. =C2=A0Like =
anything
it can be abused, but you can't legislate good programming.

As usual the reality was not a choice between plugins doing the right
thing, or the wrong thing, right now; but a choice between plugins
existing whatsoever or not. =C2=A0Mailing list bullshit tends to suggest th=
e
former is reality, but it is not. =C2=A0Reality check: No user would rather=

simply not have e.g. the JUCE plugins whatsoever. =C2=A0Don't like them=
?
Don't use them. =C2=A0Nobody loses anything by plugins existing.

As the incentive to do things correctly increases (e.g. hosts doing
fancy things, or not supporting instance access at all like Ingen), then
plugins will move to them. =C2=A0If separation is better, then real-world
incentive will reflect that, and things will evolve appropriately. =C2=A0It=

won't be the first kludge to die in LV2 land, and it won't be the l=
ast.

It is a small problem at this point in evolution, but it's not a design=

problem, it is a simple "work that needs doing" problem.

... or, in the case of host authors, not-work that needs doing. =C2=A0Don&#=
39;t
like it? =C2=A0Don't implement it. =C2=A0Plugins that want to work in y=
our host
will then have to adapt.

A custom UI not working is hardly the end of the world anyway.Fair enough except for the last sentence. The point of this thr=
ead is that for some people, it is at least the end of the road. We're =
talking about freshly developed, 100% free software plugins can't funct=
ion without their custom GUI. This is not about some legacy thing, or some =
bridge to JUCE. This is what has come out of the technology, and I don'=
t expect it to stop. We'll just end up with a situation where half of L=
V2 plugins only work in QTractor and Ardour and users don't really unde=
rstand why other programs won't/can't support them.
An API *is* by its nature legislation, David. And when your legislation=
is full of loopholes what you end up with is usually very different than w=
hat you originally had in mind.

--089e0122e7eed18b4104dcd93465--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

This is the only confirmed message in this thread.
Possibly related messages: