On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:21 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Robillard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Don't get me wrong, I think the site should be reworked to be as > > friendly as possible, to make finding appropriate implementations as > > easy as possible, and all that, but declaring an "official SDK" or > > whatever just strikes me as silly. You're basically asking if I think > > modularity is bad. No, I very emphatically do not think that at all. ;) > > I /personally/ agree that an "official SDK" is silly... be it LV2 or > Android or Qt or MeeGo or whatever. I'm a developer... why would I > want to use some mickey-mouse SDK? Give me the headers... and a > chroot... and emacs... and a beer! > > However, these mickey-mouse SDK's /do/ foster adaptation of the > technology. There's a whole generation of ADHD Devs who are looking > for some kind of gooey instant gratification. "Oooo, an Eclipse > plug-in! Shiny!" > > ...and there's the fact that LV2 really /is/ > just-a-little-too-abstract for your average dev. > > So, while the idea of an LV2 SDK disgusts me (personally)... Olivier > is right that it would accelerate developer acceptance.
http://drobilla.net/docs/lilv/ I don't think that's too abstract for your average dev. It's a library API. Certainly your average dev can use a library. Would renaming this "The LV2 SDK(R)(TM)" actually improve anything? The focus here is wrong. I'm sure there *are* things we can do to ease adoption even further. Effort into finding and improving those things would certainly be great. Documentation and a more friendly site, for example. Maybe some of those things people tend to _associate with_ an "official SDK", but this is not the same as needing an official SDK. We are not Steinberg. Discussing arbitrary silly labels is a waste of time. Tackling actual problems that impede adoption, though, certainly not a waste of time. By all means, let's find those things, make a list on the Wiki, and tackle them. ... Though, that said, I think hand-wavey discussions about "adoption" and whatever are mostly hot air in general. Developers who have an actual interest in implementing things will do so, and have done so. I think the hypothetical situation of a developer who is genuinely about to do the work being deterred by there being no "official SDK" or whatever little aesthetic details is a fantasy. I fully support any effort to make things more friendly at face value, but... whatever, really. Less talk, more rock. -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
