On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Markku Tavasti wrote: > On 3.9.2019 1.13, J. Liles wrote: >> LV2 support was not missing in the first place due to lack of >> development resources. It was intentionally omitted because LV2 does >> not align with the goals of the project. In short, LV2 is a >> comparatively heavy-weight and heavy-handed dependency, but doesn't >> offer much, if anything, over LADSPA (unless you count hype as a pro). >> I see LV2 in the same general light as systemd, if that clears matters >> up any. > > That may be true if looking just LADSPA vs LV2 specs, but I don't see > that as correct point of view. For end-user relevant thing is 'can I use > the plugin I want' and without LV2 support, answer may be 'no' because > many great plugins are LV2. Sure, goal of non is to be light as > possible, but maybe this goal might be reconsidered. Computers are > evolving, and more memory and cpu power available for everybody. > Computers that were mainstream at time of when non started are mostly > now out of order.
I see this opinion a lot. My own preference is to use lightweight, minimalist software on modern hardware. > If LV2 would be added as compile time option, then it would be still > possible to build without extra footprint. That would still involve extra work for the developer, who has stated that he has no need of LV2. There are other plugin hosts if you really need LV2. I use jalv to host one or two LV2 plugins for which there is no LADSPA or standalone JACK equivalent (eg. noise-repellent), but for most of my work I could do without LV2 entirely. John
