Re: Editor plugins / Re: Compression , was Re: [Rosegarden-user] MIDI device dialog problems in 0.85 - should I try 0.9?

[Guillaume L. <gla...@te...>]

On Sunday 11 May 2003 00:37, Larry Troxler wrote:
>
> Right I remember that the first Rosegarden had something called Petal (I
> think).

Yes. I'm to blame for this one.

> Cakewalk (or Twelve Tone Systems at the time) put a very low priority on it
> if you ask me.  They had (still have? I don't know) some really silly basic
> lisp-like macro language called CAL, but it was very slow and very
> primitive.

Yes. That was my inspiration for Petal (well, the basic idea, not the language 
itself).

> On the one hand, this being Linux and all, it's kind of curious that
> there's no editing macro language or plugin in place, but then again, it's
> nice that there's some restraint among the development team (who being
> software people would probably love to jump into such a thing). Better to
> first get it working flawlessly for the average user.

Precisely. It's the typical "cool" feature which is actually a huge time sink 
with a next-to-zero actual use. Even worse than themeable GUIs.

That said, both Gimp and Emacs are examples of an application successfully 
implementing that paradigm, although Gimp only qualifies for comparison with 
Rosegarden (Emacs is too much of a programmer tool to be relevant here).

> At least with Rosegarden, it seems the developers are open to the
> possiblity, unlike certain other Linux sequencer teams ;-)

Names, names !

-- 
						Guillaume.
						http://www.telegraph-road.org