Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] GUI screenshot , Linuxsampler status,thoughts etc (long)

[Simon J. <sje...@bl...>]

ian esten wrote:

>the downcompiling idea is definitely the way to go, but i think it would
>be much better if it was one of the things that was left until later to
>develop. i think people would much rather have a working sampler that
>used more cpu than have to wait until the downcompiler was ready to have
>anything they could use at all.  
>
IMO if linuxsampler is going to downcompile at all then it can't just be 
bolted
on for version 2.0. The feature needs to be present, in some form, in 
something
more like version 0.2.

>also, the non-downcompiled network is
>going to be necessary for synthesis network design, so it won't be
>wasted effort.
>
Its true that some sort of design-time engine will be required for use
when interactively designing a voice. *But the downcompiler should be
capable of generating that design-time engine automatically*:

Typing:
#downcompiler --generate-design-time-engine
would be considerably less effort than coding one by hand.

And how much extra effort would it be to make the downcompiler
capable of this feat? Almost none! (If you consider how very, very,
very close you could get to the objective simply by compiling a
voice which consisted of loads of modules, all connected to a
patchbay module...)

Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)