4 ms·

I'm OK with not being able to replace every audio program ever written. That's an impossible goal. I also know that I can never satisfy every possible use case.

I'm OK with not being able to replace every audio program ever written. That's an impossible goal. I also know that I can never satisfy every possible use case. I'm also quite sure that an audio program with a plugin architecture will be feasible in Zeta, once it's more mature. The system is built for scripting, multi-language support and dynamically loading packages. It will be an excellent platform for plugins. You'll be able to define your own custom plugin language(s) easily, and then you'll be able to dynamically browse and load plugins from the package manager.

eropple 10y ago
You're not parsing so I'm done trying. Good luck with it.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Let's put it this way: WHEN (and IF) Zeta works, people can discuss its suitability for audio work, and how it would cater to the VST crowds. Until then, this is beyond premature discussion...
  - eropple 10y ago
    In the large, sure. But "if you're going to say you can do X, you should have a good idea of what X is" is pretty baseline, I think.
  - tachyonbeam 10y ago
    I think people fail to understand, too, that I'm OK with having modest goals for Zeta. This system is going to be an experiment. If it doesn't become hugely popular, it's not the end of the world. If some things don't work out, we can try something different. At the end of the day, I think some things really have to be tried out before we can decide if they're viable/useful or not.
    - yumaikas 10y ago
      I suspect that some of that confusion comes from the fact that you directly compare yourself to LLVM, and that you haven't mentioned much about ParrotVM or NekoVM, which are both efforts in this space. It's also worth saying that the CLR and DLR are both efforts here as well. When you compare yourself to LLVM, you phrase the comparison as only an advantage (Zeta will be easier to use than LLVM), rather than a tradeoff (Zeta will aim for ease of use before performance, as opposed to LLVM). I don't suggest that you start hedging your writing, but am just pointing out that if you make big comparisons, people will assume great ambition on your part.

eropple 10y ago

You're not parsing so I'm done trying. Good luck with it.

coldtea 10y ago
Let's put it this way: WHEN (and IF) Zeta works, people can discuss its suitability for audio work, and how it would cater to the VST crowds. Until then, this is beyond premature discussion...
- eropple 10y ago
  In the large, sure. But "if you're going to say you can do X, you should have a good idea of what X is" is pretty baseline, I think.
- tachyonbeam 10y ago
  I think people fail to understand, too, that I'm OK with having modest goals for Zeta. This system is going to be an experiment. If it doesn't become hugely popular, it's not the end of the world. If some things don't work out, we can try something different. At the end of the day, I think some things really have to be tried out before we can decide if they're viable/useful or not.
  - yumaikas 10y ago
    I suspect that some of that confusion comes from the fact that you directly compare yourself to LLVM, and that you haven't mentioned much about ParrotVM or NekoVM, which are both efforts in this space. It's also worth saying that the CLR and DLR are both efforts here as well. When you compare yourself to LLVM, you phrase the comparison as only an advantage (Zeta will be easier to use than LLVM), rather than a tradeoff (Zeta will aim for ease of use before performance, as opposed to LLVM). I don't suggest that you start hedging your writing, but am just pointing out that if you make big comparisons, people will assume great ambition on your part.