dsq-1: open-source software synthesizer

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Am 01.04.2015 um 11:33 schrieb Rikki Cattermole:
> On 1/04/2015 10:28 p.m., Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 30.03.2015 um 08:34 schrieb Rikki Cattermole:
>
> snip
>
>>> Yeah, the vibe.d/dub guys are amazing at getting stuff working. But
>>> horrible at abstraction's especially with library code.
>>>
>>
>> Okay.
>
> Nobody can be the best at everything. So it was a compliment :)
> You've done an excellent job with them.
> And by the looks of things, you are now splitting up e.g. vibe.d So
> again its mostly past tense observation on that front.
>
> I'm kinda the opposite. Great at abstractions. Horrible at getting the
> damn thing working.

I personally usually stay away from using overly strong terms like 
"horrible" for online conversations, because it's just far too likely 
that someone gets offended (I'm usually a fan of good irony for example, 
but almost never use it online).

On topic, I don't think that splitting up the library or not does 
necessarily have anything to do with abstraction. The library is built 
in a modular way, so that splitting it up mainly just becomes an issue 
of the build configuration. If you have other examples of where you 
think the abstractions are lacking, I'd be interested to know of course.

I generally value good abstraction as important, but that doesn't always 
mean that the most extreme abstraction is the best one. Abstraction 
comes at the cost of added complexity (on the library side, but more 
importantly on the user side) and sometimes at the cost of performance, 
so it's always a trade-off.