["Sandro Magi" <naasking@hotmail.com> writes:]
>I've noticed that alot of VSTa's binaries and commands provide very little
>feedback as to their proper use or errors encountered while runnig. Some of
>the feedback is downright unhelpful. I was just wondering if this was done
>deliberately to keep the size of VSTa down to a minimum. Is size a
>spoken/unspoken goal in VSTa? Are there any set goals for VSTa at the
>moment?
A lot of the binaries are ports, which, of course, provide whatever level of
helpfullness they happen to provide.
For VSTa unique binaries, the "small and simple" philosophy applied while
coding, but I have nothing against a clear and timely error message from a
utility. So if you have particular ones which drive you crazy, just let me
know (or submit patches, whichever you prefer) and I'll fix it up.
My philosophy of smallness is allowed to follow (but trail!) general sizes
of things in the industry. So, since disk and memory have doubled in
average size several times since VSTa was first written, I'm OK with some
growth in both kernel and commands. But my litmus test is still to ask "is
this small and simple?", so I'm not looking to double, say, the size of the
kernel!
Regards,
Andy Valencia
Received on Fri Feb 16 08:36:35 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 15:12:57 PDT