Yes i have and occasionally still do. I’m not a great programmer to be honest about that, but i did learn a lot in various painful ways. I started programming because i wanted stuff that was not around on the net (low demand or too specific functionality) or was being sold for rediculously high pricing rate.
Programming scripts is a lot easier than programming applications in a full blown programming environment.
Things can get broken easily which is not always the developer to blame… I’m not talking about typos but third library changes either live like a drastic change in the Apple Quicktime library (broken MP3 import) or in the programming environment in which Renoise is maintained that occasionally has to be updated, for required functionality changes or security issues or Library compatability sakes.
A programmer already get these aggravations for free excluding user demands.
If you want to experience such stuff, i would recommend you to try Visual Basic, i’ll promise you that as soon as you want to do some serious stuff with it (not the kids stuff) , you end up in the world of third party libraries and undocumented Windows API trickery that have to resolve your VB limitations and the irritations you get because the internet is not very resourceful in solutions for this language. That’s only Visual Basic. If you go to C++ and doing stuff that requires various SDK environments (Like QuickTime SDK, DirectX SDK and Windows 2003 Server SDK, CygWin and Python all together) you get into a lot of other problems to overcome. Even simple transitions of old C++ 2005 projects to C++ 2008 editions is not an obvious 5 minute job you expect it to be.
Programming applications is more than simply keeping your code neat and categorized. Programming is sometimes real pain, pain you want to keep its level as low as possible. And programming applications to keep them running on multiple platforms is even harder. Whatever works on Windows, has to work on MacOsx and if possible also on Linux. Specially regarding native functions. Just try it and discover what it all takes. You’ll become a better person of it, that i’ll promise you. But it takes a lot more to hold on and i’m honest:i’m not that kind of person who got what that takes that’s why i take a programmer who does, very serious and he gets my deepest respect. Simply because i tried to figure out stuff and discovered it sometimes even ain’t 10% as easy to achieve stuff as it is sometimes documented online.
Aha… so this was the thread I should have read earlier. Would have saved me some time when I was trying to extract info about the embedded scripting language from the compiled Renoise executable…
EDIT: Or maybe not, as I asked about that info back at 04:47 PM yesterday and taktik made it explicit at 06:09 PM. But I figured it out on my own anyway, that’s what counts.
Btw, it’s inspiring to see so many potential hobbyist programmers around…
A config file like the one suggested is sloppy as fuck. All it would do is create inconsistencies and a bunch of bullshit.
Example: Bytesmasher releases an .xrns of one of his songs, but he has Power User Routing enabled. Now his song will not play back correctly to people without that setting turned on. Now think about if there were tens or hundreds more of these settings.
Not worth it–Even if Johann is right, and Vv is on some bullshit.
“Here’s my song! Oh. By the way. Here’s my config file to have it play right!”
Who here shares .xrns files except for tutorial and compo reasons? So, would it really matter in real life?
But much more importantly: so far the only options that have been mentioned only affect the GUI (allowing you to use previous tracks with the signal follower seems to be a pure GUI thing, not an engine, so what are you even talking about. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN PLAY – what are you even refering to?
Why is “it might play just fine because none of the options in the .cfg would be as scary as anyone here is dreaming them up to be” not even on your radar?
I can get “let’s not make X tweakable, because that might lead to more problems than would be worth it”… what I cannot get is “let’s not make ANYTHING tweakable, because theoretically then something could be made tweakable that would lead to problems”. What kind of logic is that? Oh right, it’s not logic, it’s BS.
Why put so much effort into shooting it down, with totally ridiculous arguments even, to which the counterarguments are simply ignored… instead of coming up with neat options for the .cfg or a good clean way to implement it? We all know (and cherish) that the devs will end up doing what they think is best, regardless of what we’re saying here… this feels like a gamer forum sometimes.
and vV, no offense personally but I’m kinda done talking with you. stuff like this
Yeah… and then there’s all kinds of diseases people can catch, and also sometimes a loved one dies or a relationship turns really hurtful.
“Cool story, bro”
It’s bad enough to read through it, but I won’t reply anymore. I’ll drop in here to give my ideas and then be the fuck outta here.
We need some ground to base our support on. It is not that i don’t grant you or anyone else to be able to tweak some options to their needs.
If such stuff ever gets out, then the user support level will stop at available visual usage. Which means that suppose it has been implemented and you tweak stuff, you will have to revert to the default options if you experience problems or bugs before you submit reports.
I think if you would agree with that, you and i don’t need to have any further discussion or involve any programming experience.
