[gmpi] Re: where we at
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
> I don't know how many times I've dreamt up a simple, elegant design, only
> to have it crash and burn under the harsh reality of actually coding it.
Which is why no one wants to do an implementation wityhout bouncing ideas
off people.
> We could get some real performance figures for "baton passing vs
> pre-allocated buffers" for instance.
See, features like this are not about pure performance. It's about
flexibility vs simplicity, ease of use to the programmer (which as Vincent
correctly points out does cost a LOT), and features. An implementation done
independently will NEVER cover all the bases.
Now, if we move this all higher level and just stick to pure (abstract)
requirements, we can assign a small task-team to code. Objections can be
raised once some code exists. I'm all for that. And SMALL means 3-5 people
or so. Not 15. Not 8. 3-5 people who have time and will put the time into
the project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
