On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 01:19:36PM -0400, David Robillard wrote: > However, doing it for pay is professionally dishonest. When you are > paid to report on something as an expert, you are supposed to set a > higher bar for yourself than mailing list trolls. While the buffer size > analysis is fine (as expected, since this is something the author > *actually* knows something about), the conclusions drawn about the API > itself are simply wrong and serve only to illustrate a fundamental lack > of understanding about the most basic principles of the thing,
The buffer size issue is the only one mentioned in the excerpt from my report that I quoted. Everything else, good or bad, about LV2 that I may have written or not written is just the product of your imagination. Which I can assure yout gets its mostly wrong - my overall conclusion was not negative at all. Judging from the (quite limited) feedback I got on my report, what you present as an inevitable quality of the whole LV2 project - things are 'designed' iteratively and as the result of a lot of social interaction - is what scared off my customer. This is not what you need if you want to launch a product in a determined time and commit yourself to support it. An idealist may do that, a company wanting to make a profit and survive for some time won't. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
