| On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Richard Dobson wrote:
> The impression I got from the way your post reads is that
> csound-unix-dev is the ~only~ place where ~the~ 'coding action' is. I
> think the double negative has a lot to do with that - it can so easily
> read as a put-down, even though that wasn't your intention.
>
> While developments on the Mac version and on the various Windows
> versions are reported to this list in detail (with frequent discussions
> at C-code level), somehow the csound-unix-dev list has given the
> impression of being somewhat aloof, as if to say 'hey, ~we~ are the real
> programmers here'. On the other hand, I am very conscious of the
> remarkable work that has been done for Csound on the PC and Mac
> platforms, over the last few years, familiar to everyone on this list,
[snip - etc etc, sorry, trying not to carry on too long]
Sorry to continue on this, but since I'm (we're) being accused of being
somewhat aloof, I'd (we'd) like to show that this is not the case. Dear
Richard, all you talk about are impressions - and I am sorry about that,
probably our e-mail behaviour or something else must give this impression.
I'd gladly go into facts and details but I'm really convinced that *this*
list (i.e. the csound one) should be used for other purposes (which it serves
eminently). Let me ask you and any other willing to follow on this thread:
1) is there any particular problem in being or not being a C (C++,perl,lisp
whatever) programmer? I really cannot understand this one! We're talking
as if programmers are the ones who've got balls here (sorry to all
the feminine gender on this list) - I'm sorry for the programmers, but
I feel exactely the opposite: I've got balls when I compose :) (sorry,
I know this is indecent but us italians tend to be very vulgar...)
2) the csound-unix-dev list receives all the (boring) messages concerning
CVS check-ins and updates, so that all the people on that list knows
exactely when that happens. Would you like me to re-direct that bull
over to this list?
3) the csound-unix-dev list discusses very *very* specific csound-to-linux
problems; anything that is less than very *very* specific gets re-directed
to this list too; do you think it would be right to actually add these
messages to this (csound) list? We can arrange that if that is the problem
4) one of the problems I (we) intended to solve was the utter unreadability
of the sources because of ifdefs by writing linux-specific code
in other files which get included during the configuration process;
just as it is already being done for the graphics part of csound - we're
just extending the concept to whatever is architecture-dependent; and
I'm sorry to throw one more bit into the discussion, but I wish that
was made by everybody else here by design: we could have a number of
common files which relate to a number of other machine-dependent files
which live on specific directories (win9x, linux, SGI, etc.) and IMHO that
would increase readability AND portability
5) *NO OPCODE* that was'nt existing before, nor any general purpose code,
has been added to the unofficial linux distribution - and if/when someone
of us will have some new code, *this* is the list where it will be
submitted (and of course, it will be available in the unofficial
distribution *too*) - you see, we're pretty boring people... On another
side of things - yes, it's true I've been much more cautious about
removing existing opcode names, so the unofficial distribution could
effectively (perhaps :) run old orchestras
6) It's already the third or fourth message in which I ask: what else is
wanted? that we put our distribution on the bath server so there's
no 'hassle, hassle, hassle'? (I thought the internet was a solution but
I now see that it is a problem for some of us); that we still rename it
something else as we have already done when somebody (can't remember who)
asked? (please suggest a name though, I'm running out); that we incorporate
our sources into the canonical distribution? All of this is absolutely
*FINE* with me and I suppose with all of us - just ask.
On the whole, since when all of this bickering started some months ago I
just considered the fact that it looks very much like growing pains to me:
1) the various OSes have grown considerably in complexity and each one
requires a lot of dedication to get the most out of it
2) while absolutely retaining the inter-operability of orcs and sco, it
is important that all machine-dependent configuration and features are
exploited to their fullest potential; contrary to what you're thinking,
I constantly *look* at the Win95 canonical version and I find it *much*
better than what we're using under linux. I'd like to have the same things
you have (low RT latency, sliders etc.) under linux too and all my (our)
work has been directed to this objective. Yes, true: I feel that the people
following the unofficial distribution is (somewhat) equipped to do exactely
this - if I had found anything better than doing it myself, I can assure
that I would go *without any doubt* into that direction. I don't get
off in the least when I program (and unfortunately I often have to do
it to pay the bills).
3) while I find it excellent that jpff keeps track of all changes in the main
core of csound, I pity him for trying to follow more than one specific
hardware platform. The times of the good old Atari are over, and there's
a lot more to porting than merely compiling the application (unfortunately).
The tools available on each platform require considerable time and
dedication to study, so one should consider what to spend her/his time
in when doing these chores. As for what concerns myself I don't intend
*in the least* to deal with other platforms not because I look down
at them but because: a) I don't use them, b) I don't have them, c) I
don't even know them. And if I could drop handling linux issues and
go fishing, that would be even better :)
The time I have to devote to this argument is definitely running out. I
hope this clarifies the whole thing. Sorry again for being vulgar, consider
the fact that english is not my mother tongue and I don't have all the
means of expression you have.
ciao
Nicola
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Bernardini
E-mail: nicb@axnet.it
Re graphics: A picture is worth 10K words -- but only those to describe
the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described
with pictures. |