Re: ExtAudioFile 4GB file size limitation on WAV files
Re: ExtAudioFile 4GB file size limitation on WAV files
- Subject: Re: ExtAudioFile 4GB file size limitation on WAV files
- From: Paul Davis <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 17:44:29 -0400
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Brian Willoughby <email@hidden> wrote:
> Since you said "nearly always going to be a mistake," I cannot disagree with
> an open-ended statement.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight over this!
> the AudioFile and ExtAudioFile classes were written, and even before
> libsndfile was written. At the time, only sox existed, and it had many
I too started out with audio programming before any "standard"
libraries existed - well, not quite: I remember dealing with the (not
very good) reimplementation of SGI's library for *nix.
> Sometimes it's quicker to write your own code
> and know its limitations than to reuse public code that could just as easily
> be broken, but in unknown ways.
Sure, but that situation also changes over time. 10 years ago it made
more sense to roll your own XML solution, and possibly even your own
C++ string class - these days, those choices would probably been seen
by most as no longer the right ones to make.
> (at least in the newer OSX releases, if not the updates to older OSX
> versions), and there seems to be fewer reasons to favor a private
> implementation.
fewer, indeed. the absence of BWF support is one, as is the lack of
support some "interesting" formats. but i agree, the situation changes
and if you're writing OS X-only applications, apple's libraries now
seem like a reasonably sensible choice to make for this.
> I take issue with a few of those adjectives, particularly "always improving"
> and "well designed."
I'm not going to get into another war over int<->float. You and Erik
do not agree on the details. That's well established.
What's more important is that if I end up agreeing with you about this
at some point, it is trivial for me to get libsndfile to adopt our
shared understanding of this. I can't do that if I disagree with the
author of Dirac's utility libraries or other closed source
implementations. Erik's ego might get in the way if your ego requires
that you convince him of certain things. My ego wants a library that
does what I want and need it do to, and I don't care too much what
Erik thinks, especially when its clear that there are real differences
of opinion about a subtle detail and that I don't have to care what
Erik thinks. As it happens, on this particular issue, having watched a
video by Ethan Wiener recently, I simply don't care either way.
> In response to your challenge to find a proprietary equivalent that delivers
> an always improving, always expanding, reliable, documented, and
> well-designed library, I add the challenge to find an open source library
> that actually delivers on that list. Is there anything in the open world
> that does not suffer from the single-developer limitations of libsndfile?
I'm not sure you understand how open source works in this respect, but
no matter. I wasn't trying to provide a list of phrases designed to
irritate anyone. I should have been more terse and simply said "an
equivalent cross-platform proprietary library that people can rely on
in the way that open source developers can rely on libsndfile?"
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden