On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Tom Szilagyi <tomszilagyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 January 2011 21:33, rosea.grammostola <rosea.grammostola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:There is nothing wrong with the LV2 docs. I don't consider myself a
>
> Good to know, thanks for sharing. It might give other developers more
> confidence to start coding LV2 without the fear to start a 'mission
> impossible' and get trapped in 'spaghetti' at the end.
professional programmer (I'm an EE really, just need to write software
at times), but I found it quite easy to wrap my head around it.
Hmm... I have to say that I noticed that the LV2 documentation has improved alot recently, but when I first started programming LV2, I found it very much confusing. A lot of confusion stemmed from the fact that the connection between the "LV2 Specification" document, and what you actually had to do to make a plugin wasn't clear. Now the website is better at directing you to "This is how you start" sort of documents, rather than "lv2:portspecification a lv2:urlProperty" sort of stuff. Because when I looked at those documents, I had no idea what they were talking about, or how to use any of the information they presented. I wanted to shout out show me the code! And the only link to the actual C header was a small and seemingly insignificant link, saying "you might also want to look at this". Anyway, this rant is kind of useless, because the website is much improved, at least from my perspective, although it may just be that now I understand what it's talking about after learning through examples.
Jeremy
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
