51–60 of 124 posts
Great but 'Does It Actually Work?®'
If it is to be taken seriously, it has to work with the existing plugins and software that is out there and must work better than the similar alternatives as well.
If not, then no thanks and no deal.
The design doc looks promising. I like the limits set on the scope, as a contemporary DAW is a monstrous program and it's impossible to implement all the bits simultaneously. I wish the project flourishes and attracts both users and developers. Reaper desperately needs a Free Software competitor, even an aspiring one! - Are there any plans to have some user-facing API for plugins/scripting? Professional workflows var…
But why? And why "desperately"?
Yes Reaper isn't free (neither beer nor freedom) but it is cheap and extremely customizable, extensible, scriptable, and it works well on Linux (even on a Pi).
It also has many non-free competitors and isn't dominant in its space in any sense of the word.
Title is wrong. This is not a fully-featured DAW. It intends to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most technical developments only unconsciously reflect their social contexts. And in most cases those are the greater needs of corporations. E.g. C and Javascript. Rust is deliberate about tying its social context to its technical development. Much like open source, esp.the Linux kernel, used the social contract of legal licenses and information transmission to enable a cooperative world, except Rust foregrounds as a…
Can you ELI5 how the development of, say, C, reflects the needs of corporations? Does every linux install mean less corporate power when, e.g. AWS runs on linux? Can you explain what the rust code of conduct (which AFAICT can be summarized as "please be nice") has to do with competition and individualism? Can't I still be a competitive individual without being rude?
Sure, thanks for being interested. Note that I'm not agreeing or disapproving with Rust or with you. It's merely that I'm responding to why someone asked why the Rust community feels compelled to proclaim these types of territorial expansions and why most people don't get it.
I don't have time to ELY5, but you can start with C's inception at corporate-government behemoth AT&T and follow it to e.g. here:
https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/big-picture#standardization-comm...
>"Naturally, many (but not all) of these volunteers have day jobs focused on C++: They include compiler writers, tool builders, library writers, application builders, researchers, book authors, consultants, test-suite builders, and more.
>Here is a very-partial list of some major organizations involved: Adobe, Apple, Boost, Bloomberg, EDG, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat."
Contrast that with, say the Arduino/maker movement... when was the last time they proposed language and standard changes? Although both communities use C, one of them is blinking LEDs in young couples' living rooms and the other is flying helicopters to protect borders which requires massive investment and coordination across hostile, competitive, captialized entities.
> Does every linux install mean less corporate power when, e.g. AWS runs on linux? No, not always absolutely everything is always completely absolute all the time, forever, but you can contrast AWS running Linux with AWS running Windows and see development they do under e.g. GPL license must be shared back to the community.
> Can you explain what the rust code of conduct (which AFAICT can be summarized as "please be nice") has to do with competition and individualism? Can't I still be a competitive individual without being rude?
It's helpful to them when outsiders glean superficial meanings from the conduct such as that. No offense: We all want to feel warm and fuzzy. It's what they don't say. Take a closer look:
> Everyone is invited to discuss the proposal, to work toward a shared understanding of the tradeoffs. Though sometimes arduous, this community deliberation is Rust’s secret sauce for quality.
Their values prevent geniuses like Stallman from going rogue and embarrassing them socially. This is their tradeoff for the excluding contributions of embarrassing wizards and why it's so valuable for them to capture technical territory.
> We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone.
They will accept an inferior development if it means they can keep their reputation pure.
> Can't I still be a competitive individual without being rude?
Yes you can, but that's the contrapositive of their Code. If you are rude, your competitive contributions are excluded. So it's not "please be nice." It's "if you're not nice, you're not a part of us." Since this makes it harder to get the best people, it's a victory when they're able to pull of large technical feats.
Who, developers aside, gives a single whit what language it's written in? Just give us something useful, expandable, and with ongoing support for when bugs do appear. So much digital ink (and the associated mindshare) wasted in the design doc whinging on about how much Rust is better than C++ that they hardly talk about the DAW itself. And for features, immediately canning MP3, 4/4 time signatures, and sidechain rout…
In this case, though, what is really advertised is the project itself, not the product, which doesn't exist and likely to not exist for a while. In this context, the language choise is probably as relevant as the design goals.
from the design doc: >Non-Goals ... Non-4/4 time signatures and time signature changes ... Just curious from a software design perspective why this is the case. I would, naively, assume you build up software primitives that wouldn't assume a time signature, making it trivial to support whatever segmentation of time. Why not just have a pulse and divide it however is needed? Also I see nothing about OSC support, is th…
This is quite weird and unfortunate. Also, does the world need yet another DAW? There are dozens of DAWs, some free, some not. Most of them are excellent; all of them let you use non-4/4 time signatures.
Maybe it's more "See, Rust can, too!" type software?
Footnote: I have not done extensive research, hence the question.
The design mockups have a similar vibe to Bitwig.the color scheme and general ui ( https://www.bitwig.com/ ). I say that as a good thing, I really like Bitwig.
from the design doc: >Non-Goals ... Non-4/4 time signatures and time signature changes ... Just curious from a software design perspective why this is the case. I would, naively, assume you build up software primitives that wouldn't assume a time signature, making it trivial to support whatever segmentation of time. Why not just have a pulse and divide it however is needed? Also I see nothing about OSC support, is th…
This is quite weird and unfortunate. Also, does the world need yet another DAW? There are dozens of DAWs, some free, some not. Most of them are excellent; all of them let you use non-4/4 time signatures.
from the design doc: >Non-Goals ... Non-4/4 time signatures and time signature changes ... Just curious from a software design perspective why this is the case. I would, naively, assume you build up software primitives that wouldn't assume a time signature, making it trivial to support whatever segmentation of time. Why not just have a pulse and divide it however is needed? Also I see nothing about OSC support, is th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is quite weird and unfortunate. Also, does the world need yet another DAW? There are dozens of DAWs, some free, some not. Most of them are excellent; all of them let you use non-4/4 time signatures.
Genuine question: How many are written in Rust? Maybe it's more "See, Rust can, too!" type software? Footnote: I have not done extensive research, hence the question.
If the goal is to demonstrate that Rust can be used to write that kind of software, then hey why not; but they will need to have users at some point, to be able to actually call it a DAW.