3 ms·

The MIDI spec was successful for 30+ years for a reason and manufacturers managed with SysEx without any issue, there is no justification for any "compatibility

by aikah 7y ago

The MIDI spec was successful for 30+ years for a reason and manufacturers managed with SysEx without any issue, there is no justification for any "compatibility layer" whatsoever here. The problem wasn't the spec obviously.

nitrogen 7y ago
As a musician and software developer I'd disagree. Sure, manufacturers are getting on fine because they can do whatever they want, but it makes the setup for anyone who isn't the manufacturer much more bespoke and challenging, as others have said in thread. Leaded gasoline was successful for decades too, but there comes a time to take things to the next level.
- aikah 7y ago
  > As a musician and software developer I'd disagree. Sure, manufacturers are getting on fine because they can do whatever they want, but it makes the setup for anyone who isn't the manufacturer much more bespoke and challenging, as others have said in thread. MIDI 1.0 was successful for 30+ years because of its simplicity, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Building a MIDI payload is extremely simple and serious manufacturers will document their MIDI implementation in public documents. What part of the MIDI spec did you have hard time with when developing software using the MIDI 1.0 protocol? Your comment about gasoline has absolutely nothing to do with MIDI.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    There are some bits that are problematic. Allocating memory (by asking the OS) in a realtime context is a no-no. This means guessing the maximum size of a sysex ahead of time or breaking RT programming rules. The other tricky issue is the way MIDI 1.0 defines the transmission of the LSB and MSB for 14 bit messages. They got it backwards, requiring the receiver to use a timer. Might have been sensible for baked-in-h/w MIDI gear, not so great for general purpose computing.

3 ms·

The MIDI spec was successful for 30+ years for a reason and manufacturers managed with SysEx without any issue, there is no justification for any "compatibility

by aikah 7y ago

nitrogen 7y ago
As a musician and software developer I'd disagree. Sure, manufacturers are getting on fine because they can do whatever they want, but it makes the setup for anyone who isn't the manufacturer much more bespoke and challenging, as others have said in thread. Leaded gasoline was successful for decades too, but there comes a time to take things to the next level.
- aikah 7y ago
  > As a musician and software developer I'd disagree. Sure, manufacturers are getting on fine because they can do whatever they want, but it makes the setup for anyone who isn't the manufacturer much more bespoke and challenging, as others have said in thread. MIDI 1.0 was successful for 30+ years because of its simplicity, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Building a MIDI payload is extremely simple and serious manufacturers will document their MIDI implementation in public documents. What part of the MIDI spec did you have hard time with when developing software using the MIDI 1.0 protocol? Your comment about gasoline has absolutely nothing to do with MIDI.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    There are some bits that are problematic. Allocating memory (by asking the OS) in a realtime context is a no-no. This means guessing the maximum size of a sysex ahead of time or breaking RT programming rules. The other tricky issue is the way MIDI 1.0 defines the transmission of the LSB and MSB for 14 bit messages. They got it backwards, requiring the receiver to use a timer. Might have been sensible for baked-in-h/w MIDI gear, not so great for general purpose computing.