Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Note that you need a RO machine for the system to work. (It may work
with an emulator, but I can't say.) However the code for what I'm
using is based on source code provided as an example. This is in 'C'
so if you can follow 'C' you can read it.

http://users.skynet.be/Andre.Timmerm...r/download.htm


Ah, right, I see. I can't see the stream capture plugin, but that was
all I meant - and you seem to be using it. I was confused by your
original phrase 'recording a stream of music'. I'd just adopted
'capture' because that's what the young people tend to use: record
sound, capture data.

I'm more used to the idea that we record data or music. For getting the
info from a URL I'd be more likely to say 'fetch' and then 'record'.

RO is 'modular', so any program can call on other sections of the code
provided. This makes it easy for a program to treat a URL as if it were a
file on your machine - provided the fetching then can work OK. e.g. you
haven't bungled the URL and have a suitable connection. The advantage is
that RO programs can avoid repeated re-inventions of wheels. This means
most RO applications are quite compact, as is the OS.


V. nice. I used to have a passing interest in Windows and DOS, but
recently fled to Mac because I decided, once and for all, that I just
wanted it to work and be done with all the .exe and .bat and .dll things.

But that means that to understand the process fully you'd also need to see
what the PlaySample module and the URL fetching code are doing. I can't
comment on that as I haven't looked at it. Just use them via the interfaces
they provide.

And what a marvellous piece of software function over style it seems :-)

Not sure if you are referring to Andre's programming style or the way RO
tends to work. ;-


Well, the screenshots remind me of Windows 3.1. Although in all honesty
if it works, go with it. I find Mac apps look like something out of
(what i might imagine to be) a child's nightmare. But they just toddle
along in a *consistent and reliable* sort of way.

My own programs are nightmares as I rarely comment and often hack until it
sort-of-works...

[snip]
...

Luck, a grim determination, work and money.

Actually, not *too* much money - about £300 for cutting edge hardware,
£30 for something that works. Pleased to see they outstrip Intel's
latest on power consumption. And pleased, obviously, that you're happy
with it.

You can't budget for irrationality. I'd prefer to travel by steam train
and listen to music amplified by valves. All to do with the journey,
apparently.

The drawbacks with RO machines tend to be limited hardware, and lack of
'compatability' with widely used proprietary filetypes/methods. Hence the
snag when people use some formats for net radio. 'Real' because of its
proprietary nature, 'aac' because no-one has yet done the decoder for RO.
:-)

But the advantage (for me) is that the RO systems are quite simple to use,
and work with an efficiency that belies the crude measures like cpu speed
and available ram.[1] Of course, this also is because it is what I'm used
to and like. Just like a preference for steam train or valve amps. What
suits best depends on who you are, what you wish to do, and the style in
which you wish to do it. :-)


Quite, wouldn't argue with that at all.

[1] Analogy here with the point about not just judging cameras by
'megapixels' but also checking things like the lens capability and how well
the images are encoded.

However the above is all straying OT... :-)


Indeed. Life bumbles along :-)

rob