I don't have any problems with ideas just because they are from you, or anyone, as long as I think they are sound.

My problem with you is your unilateral actions, not your ideas.

As for the idea, as I did before we got into this argument, I still think it is better to put everything that can reasonably be interpreted as the Csound API, regardless of language interface, into one library. It is just simpler. A simpler build, a simpler installation, a simpler runtime configuration, and a simpler story about what Csound can do.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Istvan Varga 
Sent: Oct 21, 2005 3:10 PM
To: csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] wrappers, frontends etc

Michael Gogins wrote:

> I did several times explain the advantages of having one binary or,
 > at least, a standard installation that includes the wrappers by default.

So, did I ever want to make it impossible to have an installation that
includes the wrappers by default ? No. The entire issue is about how the
wrappers are included, and I prefer the modular approach, and, judging
from other posts, it seems that most people who commented on this topic
agree with me too. You always drift away from the subject, and arrive at
either "we need a standard installation with wrappers included" (which is
not what this argument is about, i.e. the particular way in which they
are included), or "you do not have the right to change other people's code"
followed by implicit or explicit threats that I will be removed from
Csound development. Without ever even attempting to properly answer why my
suggestion is wrong, perhaps you only oppose it so much because the idea is
from me ?


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Michael Gogins wrote:

> As for the idea, as I did before we got into this argument,
 > I still think it is better to put everything that can reasonably
 > be interpreted as the Csound API, regardless of language interface,
 > into one library. It is just simpler. A simpler build, a simpler
 > installation, a simpler runtime configuration, and a simpler story
 > about what Csound can do.

In exactly what way does it make installation and runtime configuration
simpler (I admit that the modular way is slightly more complex as far
as build scripts are considered, but not more than the difference between
for example a plugin opcode or a built-in one) ?


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net