8 ms·

"Including a rear parking sensor is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" seems to be a closer analogy. If you cannot use the MVP of the software f

"Including a rear parking sensor is a non-goal for the MVP of the car we're building" seems to be a closer analogy. If you cannot use the MVP of the software for your use cases, that doesn't mean it cannot be worthwhile for anyone else.

gglitch 5y ago
There might be language games at work here. '4/4 only' could be totally reasonable for an MVP from the perspective of the software developers, but not minimally viable from the perspective of a musician. Edit: Sorry, meant this as a reply to GP
- HelloNurse 5y ago
  Unfortunately, naive assumptions tend to bite later when the amount of rework needed to remove them is discovered. Being able to change time signatures is the sort of feature that is more important than delivering an anemic DAW sooner, and not only in theory as a "nice to have" but as proof of being able to be better than the competition.
  - gglitch 5y ago
    Yep. I don't remember the post, but in a (relatively) recent thread on DAWs, some developer was talking about how surprised they'd been by the complexity latent (pun acknowledge but not intended) in management of the timing grid.
philipov 5y ago
Yes, as long as your use-case only includes driving straight forward, the MVP is fine. Supporting non-4/4 time is such a fundamental change that not being to turn is a good analogy. The rule of thumb is that you need to design to support at least 3 different use cases from the start if you want to create something that can viably extend to being a generic product.
gmueckl 5y ago
No, being able to use different time signatures is essential in music. Time signatures are a basic building block required to define the vast majority of musical styles in the world. All of the western classical and popular music builds its rhythms and structure on a whole collection of time signatures (4/4, 3/4, 6/8, 2/4 are the more common ones). 4/4 is the most common time signature, but at least half of the music that follows any kind of time signature uses different ones. Also, a quite significant number of pieces use changes in time signatures throughout the piece to great effect. To come back to your analogy, a feature that is akin to a rear parking sensor in a car would be something like retroactive recording.
- royjacobs 5y ago
  Okay, you just want different things from this MVP than the developers want. That's fine.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    If by "different things" you mean "a functioning daw at all". 4/4 is not the only time signature... 3/4, 6/8 are really common too. Not to mention 5/4, 7/4, and others. Not supporting other time signatures is like building a car with wheels but without a steering wheel, and then handwaving criticism as "wanting different features". As a musician/composer it's beyond absurd to have only 4/4 as the option- it's a non-starter. As a software engineer this seems like a fundamental code issue, because it really should be dynamically handled, and time signature is important for other components.
romwell 5y ago
How is this a "closer" analogy? I motivated mine. The car without a parking sensor still gets you anywhere you want to go. This one only drives in straight lines, it's incapable of changing direction. There is a difference between "has a use case" and "fully-featured DAW". A wheelbarrow has use cases. It's not a car (and not a fully-featured one, at that). The decision to support non-12 tone equal temperament from the get-go, but not something a simple as a goddamned waltz (or 6/8 beat, think Addams Family theme, or House Of The Rising Sun, or...) is perplexing. Tells me the DAW makers don't have their priorities straight. May I ask you about what experience with audio production you have that you base your opinion/analogies on? I've been producing music[1] for about 15 years, and used DAWs from Cakewalk 6 to Cubase to Ableton. My opinions are based on this experience. [1] https://soundcloud.com/romwell https://soundcloud.com/romwell
- royjacobs 5y ago
  I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. I also don't have a horse in this race. I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate about taking a random item in a _design_ for an _MVP_ and drawing all sorts of conclusions about both the tool and the authors of this tool. Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Again, this is even just a _design_ for an MVP. If it doesn't align with what _you_ find important then that's fine. Just use something else, you've clearly been doing so for about 15 years. I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW.
  - romwell 5y ago
    TL;DR: you don't have experience in the subject you opine on, but wonder why someone who does would. I'll address these points below. --------- >I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. Because that's what would make you qualified to have an opinion on the matter, or make an analogy. If you don't use a DAW regularly to make music, you are not qualified to say that lack of 3/4 support is just like having no parking sensor. You don't have an understanding of which features are important if you are not a user. (Speaking of which, I hope you at least drove a car!). >I also don't have a horse in this race Well, you commented on the issue. There's your horse. >I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate As a musician, yes, I'm so extremely passionate about the art and craft of music making - and the tools involved. Just like literally any other musician. We are passionate because music is how we express passion. On top of it, I get sad when people express unsubstantiated opinions when confidence on the issues that I care about. >Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Why does it matter to the developers to say that this is a project "by musicians, for musicians"? For the same reason, it matters to me, as a musician, to note that their MVP is not heading in the direction of their claim. If anything, I'm helping that project by consulting them on the product / giving user feedback on the design. Because I care, and I don't want to see a development effort wasted on something that people won't use because the developers did not understand the needs of the people they are writing this program for. >I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW. Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". That would be dishonest. It makes sense, therefore, for musicians to comment on the discrepancy of something aiming to be a "fully featured DAW" without having the most basic feature (but shooting for advanced stuff few people need).

gglitch 5y ago

There might be language games at work here. '4/4 only' could be totally reasonable for an MVP from the perspective of the software developers, but not minimally viable from the perspective of a musician. Edit: Sorry, meant this as a reply to GP

HelloNurse 5y ago
Unfortunately, naive assumptions tend to bite later when the amount of rework needed to remove them is discovered. Being able to change time signatures is the sort of feature that is more important than delivering an anemic DAW sooner, and not only in theory as a "nice to have" but as proof of being able to be better than the competition.
- gglitch 5y ago
  Yep. I don't remember the post, but in a (relatively) recent thread on DAWs, some developer was talking about how surprised they'd been by the complexity latent (pun acknowledge but not intended) in management of the timing grid.

philipov 5y ago

Yes, as long as your use-case only includes driving straight forward, the MVP is fine. Supporting non-4/4 time is such a fundamental change that not being to turn is a good analogy. The rule of thumb is that you need to design to support at least 3 different use cases from the start if you want to create something that can viably extend to being a generic product.

gmueckl 5y ago

No, being able to use different time signatures is essential in music. Time signatures are a basic building block required to define the vast majority of musical styles in the world. All of the western classical and popular music builds its rhythms and structure on a whole collection of time signatures (4/4, 3/4, 6/8, 2/4 are the more common ones). 4/4 is the most common time signature, but at least half of the music that follows any kind of time signature uses different ones. Also, a quite significant number of pieces use changes in time signatures throughout the piece to great effect. To come back to your analogy, a feature that is akin to a rear parking sensor in a car would be something like retroactive recording.

royjacobs 5y ago
Okay, you just want different things from this MVP than the developers want. That's fine.
- andrewzah 5y ago
  If by "different things" you mean "a functioning daw at all". 4/4 is not the only time signature... 3/4, 6/8 are really common too. Not to mention 5/4, 7/4, and others. Not supporting other time signatures is like building a car with wheels but without a steering wheel, and then handwaving criticism as "wanting different features". As a musician/composer it's beyond absurd to have only 4/4 as the option- it's a non-starter. As a software engineer this seems like a fundamental code issue, because it really should be dynamically handled, and time signature is important for other components.

romwell 5y ago

How is this a "closer" analogy? I motivated mine. The car without a parking sensor still gets you anywhere you want to go. This one only drives in straight lines, it's incapable of changing direction. There is a difference between "has a use case" and "fully-featured DAW". A wheelbarrow has use cases. It's not a car (and not a fully-featured one, at that). The decision to support non-12 tone equal temperament from the get-go, but not something a simple as a goddamned waltz (or 6/8 beat, think Addams Family theme, or House Of The Rising Sun, or...) is perplexing. Tells me the DAW makers don't have their priorities straight. May I ask you about what experience with audio production you have that you base your opinion/analogies on? I've been producing music[1] for about 15 years, and used DAWs from Cakewalk 6 to Cubase to Ableton. My opinions are based on this experience. [1] https://soundcloud.com/romwell https://soundcloud.com/romwell

royjacobs 5y ago
I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. I also don't have a horse in this race. I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate about taking a random item in a _design_ for an _MVP_ and drawing all sorts of conclusions about both the tool and the authors of this tool. Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Again, this is even just a _design_ for an MVP. If it doesn't align with what _you_ find important then that's fine. Just use something else, you've clearly been doing so for about 15 years. I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW.
- romwell 5y ago
  TL;DR: you don't have experience in the subject you opine on, but wonder why someone who does would. I'll address these points below. --------- >I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. Because that's what would make you qualified to have an opinion on the matter, or make an analogy. If you don't use a DAW regularly to make music, you are not qualified to say that lack of 3/4 support is just like having no parking sensor. You don't have an understanding of which features are important if you are not a user. (Speaking of which, I hope you at least drove a car!). >I also don't have a horse in this race Well, you commented on the issue. There's your horse. >I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate As a musician, yes, I'm so extremely passionate about the art and craft of music making - and the tools involved. Just like literally any other musician. We are passionate because music is how we express passion. On top of it, I get sad when people express unsubstantiated opinions when confidence on the issues that I care about. >Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Why does it matter to the developers to say that this is a project "by musicians, for musicians"? For the same reason, it matters to me, as a musician, to note that their MVP is not heading in the direction of their claim. If anything, I'm helping that project by consulting them on the product / giving user feedback on the design. Because I care, and I don't want to see a development effort wasted on something that people won't use because the developers did not understand the needs of the people they are writing this program for. >I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW. Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". That would be dishonest. It makes sense, therefore, for musicians to comment on the discrepancy of something aiming to be a "fully featured DAW" without having the most basic feature (but shooting for advanced stuff few people need).