ljp wrote:
>
> To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
> a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
> easily (not alot of excessive library inclusion that I have to install
> every libtom-libdick-and-libharry libs just to compile it- because there no
> binaries available), functions well, and serves the purpose that I use it
> for. I'm willing to check out glame. I'll let ya know what I think about it.
>
> ljp
While I can see your point of view, I think you forgot an even more important
factor: "...and I'll be able to use the stuff I wrote 2 years from now". I'm
from a classical background, perhaps this isn't important in more commercially
driven music. But I'd spend extra effort to make sure the program I was using
was maintainable and portable rather than go for the quick and easy solution.
So QBasic is out: being non-free, the language spec might change, so I couldn't
recompile it on my next computer. (I realise that was just an hyperbole 8-)
For the reason of data obsolescence alone, I'd say the design issues are
actually at least as important as user interface ones.
But then, I'm still using LaTeX 8-)
Nick/
