> Thank you for this effort. > I think it's a good idea, but Yeah, me too Lennart, I totally adore and follow your efforts to fix Linux Audio for "everyone".
> For example you write: > "I don't think that PortAudio is very good API for Unix-like operating > systems. I cannot recommend it, but it's your choice." > That's your opinion only, without any why. > I would prefere a pro/contra style with facts instead, > maybe with some clearly separated opinion-statements at the bottom of it. Never underestimate programmer lazyness. ;-) Actually I use PortAudio in my App for one simple reason: It has the same basic API model as JACK. I also have a jack backend, but whenever jack fails, due to misconfiguration, or not being available, my app falls back to PortAudio. Did I mention that this is an easy API? ;-) I guess my app is somewhere between: > * I want to do professional audio programming, hard-disk recording, > music synthesizing, MIDI interfacing! > - Use JACK and/or the full ALSA interface. > * I want to do basic PCM audio playback/capturing! > - Use the safe ALSA subset. So using the safe ALSA subset, would probably be possible for me. However, I won't, because I'd rather concentrate on my domain specific areas of expertise, and understanding complex APIs is not one of them. Many of my users are likely not even aware or care about what JACK is, so how is "Zero-Configuration" Jack coming along? ;-) :-P I will happily drop PortAudio as soon as I am sure that Jack works out of the box everywhere. hehe Anyways, so what is my point? Probably that ease of use is another thing that is important for judging Audio APIs, especially when you pursue programming free software in your free time, like I do. Cheers, and have fun -Richard -- http://www.openmovieeditor.org/ -- Don't contribute to the Y10K problem! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
