Csound Csound-dev Csound-tekno Search About

Re: [Cs-dev] Re: More unasked for changes

Date2005-10-21 17:04
FromMichael Gogins
SubjectRe: [Cs-dev] Re: More unasked for changes
The commotion is that you did it without my permission -- after I had already complained publicly to you about your doing things to my code without my permission. How would you feel if I decided that the module loading facility was redundant and removed it without even asking you? As a matter of fact, when you introduced it, I did think it was redundant. But it didn't hurt what I was doing, so that was fine. Now, I think it is better than the old opcode loading functions. Perhaps, in the future, you will see the reasons for having language interfaces in the core of Csound.

But at this point, I have every reason to believe that you will continue to change my code as you see fit, without asking permission or even discussing the question. This is simply not acceptable, and you need to admit that and say you won't do it again.

Sincerely,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Istvan Varga 
Sent: Oct 21, 2005 10:19 AM
To: csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] Re: More unasked for changes

Michael Gogins wrote:

> I am not opposed to having the wrappers in a separate library, as long 
> as that library is part of the default distribution of Csound. I have 
> stated this previously.

So, then what is all the commotion about ? I did not remove your code,
just moved it to a separate library. While it is currently the already
existing CsoundVST shared library, it could of course be a new file that
contains the CppSound interface as well as any eventual wrappers and glue
code for high level languages, with an unlimited number of dependencies and
written entirely in C++ with templates as you wish. It is not uncommon
practice to provide a basic library with a plain C interface, and build
wrappers and external language bindings on top of that.


-------------------------------------------------------
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

Date2005-10-21 17:22
FromIstvan Varga
SubjectRe: [Cs-dev] Re: More unasked for changes
Michael Gogins wrote:

 > my code without my permission. How would you feel if I decided that
 > the module loading facility was redundant and removed it without even
 > asking you?

Well, try it and we will see. The worst thing that could happen is that
I would restore the code (or at least parts of it, as the fact that someone
removed it lets me know that it is being disliked and needs to be changed),
so you have nothing to lose. I am not like some others who immediately
start yelling and threatening with locking out of development as soon as
a single line of code is changed.
If you can do so with updating all code that depends on the new interface
so that nothing gets broken or degraded in functionality, I may even welcome
your work on simplifying the plugin interface. While it has some additional
features compared to the old functions (such as allowing the plugin to
register new command line options, and better error reporting), it should be
possible to merge the two interfaces somehow so that we get the best of both.

> As a matter of fact, when you introduced it, I did think
 > it was redundant.

I always felt that the plugin API is far from being perfect, so it
may be useful that you brought up this issue.

 > Perhaps, in the future, you will see the reasons for having language
 > interfaces in the core of Csound.

I already see reasons to have language interfaces. I just do not see
the advantages of the particular implementation where they are all statically
compiled into a single monolithic library, as opposed to having a minimal
basic library and building all frontends and language bindings around that.


-------------------------------------------------------
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