Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#31

Post by falcolas »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #26
drogus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site is for developers, isn't it? For me this is interesting, cause I could see myself contributing to a Rust project, I'm guessing there's more people who think that way.

Agreed. Furthermore, Rust is/was imo a controversial language - early on some argued it was "too difficult" to write "real" applications in it. I'm super interested in real world performance intensive applications written in Rust, Haskell, etc. Language matters to me, even if i don't plan on participating.

Rust is about as controversial as Python these days, though for different reasons.

To be clear, I'm not annoyed at it being called out here (much - it gets old no matter which langauge is pimped). I'm most annoyed at how much space in the features doc, which should be about the project, not the internals.

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#32

Post by Igelau »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #2

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…

As other pointed out, this is the list of non-goals they cleared out to make a minimal viable product.

Though I'm thinking "fixing something that fundamental after the fact is going to suuuuck".

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#33

Post by chillingeffect »

mpfundstein wrote: post #9

"proudly written in Rust" ... what is it with this Rust guys? lol but locks cool. are there actual screenshot available? the notes editor looks fun. loved the one from fruity loops A LOT (awesome profram)

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 social movement and demands traction through technical superiority. It's an innovator in community standards. "You want quality code? You'll have to abide by our social rules." Its founders have read some philosophy. Similar to how every Linux install means less corporate power and less invasion of privacy, every Rust conquest such as this represents a threat to dissolve the entrenched hegemony of competition and individualism. See: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#34

Post by berkes »

falcolas wrote: post #28
drogus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site is for developers, isn't it? For me this is interesting, cause I could see myself contributing to a Rust project, I'm guessing there's more people who think that way.

This website is for developers; the product feature page should be about the product, not the programmers.

Do you consider the README on Github a "product feature page"?

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#35

Post by falcolas »

berkes wrote: post #34
falcolas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This website is for developers; the product feature page should be about the product, not the programmers.

Do you consider the README on Github a "product feature page"?

No, but I do consider a "Design Document" to be a product feature page. It's full of product features (and non-features) after all (when it's not going on about Rust).

https://github.com/MeadowlarkDAW/Meadowlark/blob/main/DESIGN...

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#36

Post by gmueckl »

rectang wrote: post #25
gmueckl wrote: post #13

How is this titled "fully featured" when it's still in its early stages with very little code in the repository (and most of what is there looking like an exercise in software architecture)? Is the "it's in rust" hype so strong now that even a few lines of code covered in ambition are sufficient to make the front page of HN?

It's aspirational, jeez. Their eventual goal is to be a "fully featured DAW" as opposed to some other kind of tool. At least that's how I interpret it.

Aspirations are fine, but you need to separate aspirations from the status quo in your communications. The HN headline fails in that regard.

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#37

Post by royjacobs »

romwell wrote: post #30
royjacobs wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The document states this is a non-goal for the MVP, not a non-goal for the final product.

"Ability to make turns is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" You can't record a cover of Queen's We Are The Champions or Somebody To Love without struggling with the UI if 3/4 is not supported. Or Blondie's Call Me. Or a plethora of other popular music. "Fully Featured (in our imagination)"

"Including a rear parking sensor is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" seems to be a closer analogy.

If you cannot use the MVP of the software for your use cases, that doesn't mean it cannot be worthwhile for anyone else.

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#38

Post by acomjean »

falcolas wrote: post #16

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…

I think a lot of us who've used the open source linux tools for complex tasks have been bitten by weird UI problems and unstable code (Video editing comes to mind for me).

Its much better now, but having a really solid foundation and fewer crashes is a huge win. With the new components they want to build in Rust is kind of exiting. DAWs are a pretty large complex software and a good test for Rust as a language. It will take not insignificant time to optimize and get the feature complete but optimistic this takes off and improves open source software.

It seemed to me they were justifying using a new language, because its a little crazy. A lot of existing components and things could be brought together that are open source and already in C++ (or C...).

Honestly as a end user, if it works and works well, you won't care (much like you use websites without worrying about the software stack that powers it). But if you want to contribute to building the software you might care.

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#39

Post by gglitch »

royjacobs wrote: post #37
romwell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ability to make turns is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" You can't record a cover of Queen's We Are The Champions or Somebody To Love without struggling with the UI if 3/4 is not supported. Or Blondie's Call Me. Or a plethora of other popular music. "Fully Featured (in our imagination)"

"Including a rear parking sensor is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" seems to be a closer analogy. If you cannot use the MVP of the software for your use cases, that doesn't mean it cannot be worthwhile for anyone else.

There might be language games at work here. '4/4 only' could be totally reasonable for an MVP from the perspective of the software developers, but not minimally viable from the perspective of a musician.

Edit: Sorry, meant this as a reply to GP

Re: Meadowlark, a DAW written in Rust

#40

Post by jcelerier »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #23

It's also a bit disappointing to see another project chooses proprietary service for the communication. I joined #rust-audio:matrix.org almost a year ago and just figured the project was dead since the room isn't bridged and it's completely quiet there. Turns out everyone's on Discord. If you're a musician, sound industry professional or just a hobbyist, I invite you to join the Mixing room on the Matrix.org server (…

Yeah, I used to be active in various audio & development-related Discord instances and one day my account got banned with no good reason and no possibility for appeal. Fuck that.
Post reply on HN