SynthMakerjobro ·
I've been into SynthMaker since 2005/6, and I've hardly ever touched the code / ASM parts. Why? No proper manuals that a beginner can grasp. However I do think that it would really benefit the community if such manual was available.
Code / ASM reference manual for beginners
From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
infuzion ·
Good idea, but I am certain what information there is already on the WiKi is hardly used. If you learn something new, you can add it there & pass it on.
Xtinct ·
As far as I can see the wiki has only been updated 3 times this year and 2 of those were for mispellings so maybe not the font of all knowledge. I'd really like to see a code for dummys (hey call it code for xtinct) with a list of terms and examples of their use. Yes there are examples in the wiki and the forum but it can take a long time to find and when you do they can be quite crypticaly anotated if anotated at all. Maybe if we all chipped in and bought Trogludite some beer 😈 he'd type something really slowly for us. (I mean like speaking slowly not like where's the final part of the trigger tutorial 😉 )
martinvicanek ·
The code module was the main reason why I bought SM.
infuzion ·
Xtinct wrote: As far as I can see the wiki has only been updated 3 times this year and 2 of those were for misspellings so maybe not the font of all knowledge.
The Code & ASM modules have hardly changed in the past 5 years; just a few extra commands added. Anyone here can edit it, including you.
trogluddite ·
Xtinct wrote: Maybe if we all chipped in and bought Trogludite some beer 😈 he'd type something really slowly for us
He he, I think I already drink as much beer as my poor-old liver can tolerate! 😉 Seriously, though it is a great idea, and I do kind of like putting manuals together, I just don't have the time available these days. Having to 'steal' odd hours here and there for SM is actually getting rather frustrating - the big ASM conversion I'm working on currently (pitch detection) is taking an age, because I don't get long enough sessions to 'get in the zone'. 🙁
Xtinct wrote: take a long time to find and when you do they can be quite crypticaly anotated if anotated at all.
Yes, I agree - the search features etc. are cool, and should always be first 'port-of-call', but they do not lend themselves to finding programming skills. And if you are new to Code/ASM, I can see how it would be difficult to even know what to search for (e.g. if you were looking for an "If...Then...Else" equivalent, how would you know that searching for "bitmask" would be helpful?). Likewise with annotations - some are better than others, but often the comments are more to do with a specific DSP algorithm or underlying maths rather than the programming techniques which have been used. Understandable, as that is the traditional way to use 'in-line' comments - as an 'aide-memoire' for seasoned programmers, but little use to those who have yet to learn what the hell cryptic codes like "cvtps2dq" mean!!
Hard to know what to suggest - ideally we need a way that all of the 'gurus' can collaborate to build a guide out of many small chunks. But I think even that really needs a single "editor" to co-ordinate contributions, index everything for easy searching, edit for consistent style, check that code snippets work correctly, and resolve disputes when folks start arguing over whether technique "A" is better or worse than technique "B".
Re:Wiki
infuzion wrote: Anyone here can edit it, including you
True enough, and it would seem the ideal place to put something like this. But that "Anyone" is rather deceptive - there is no point in having articles there which are full of errors, or make too many assumptions about folks level of knowledge. This comes back to my point above - without central co-ordination, there is no way to easily give a guide any kind of structure, and no way to ensure that "missing links" between subjects get filled up with appropriate tutorials. I think that is why it is often under-used - as a 'place' to put things it is great, but it does not diminish the amount of work required to build a coherent and usefully indexed "step-by-step" curriculum for learning such a complex subject.
infuzion ·
WiKi: There is already a style guide that Oddson created (with a few edits by yours truly), that people tend to ignore, though it is linked to on THE FRONT PAGE.
I can say much more, but in sum it up: + something > +0 If people can't understand that math, the perhaps SM isn't for them 😉
trogluddite ·
For sure, something is always better than nothing - but you said it yourself earlier...
infuzion wrote: what information there is already on the WiKi is hardly used
...and I think that jobro has a good point, that this is largely because there is no sense of a structured 'step-by-step' curriculum. The content itself is generally good quality, but they are just a random spread of pieces about each contributor's 'pet subject'. It lacks the 'coherence' or 'flow' to lead a beginner from 'Step 1', taking concepts in a logical order. That makes it mostly useful to folks who already have a good grounding in programming, - i.e. they already know what they are looking for. That's why I prefer using ,pdf's etc. for my tutorials - for example, imagine trying to use Wikipedia to learn maths; all of the information you need is in there somewhere, but it could never take the place of studying a proper course.
DigitalWhiteByte ·
centralizing all with Google Doc, could that be possible? http://docs.google.com/
trogluddite ·
DigitalWhiteByte wrote: centralizing all with Google Doc, could that be possible?
Hmm, certainly looks possible - it allows the kind of bookmarking, linking, TOC stuff that would be needed. Also seems quite easy to choose who can view, and who has editing rights. I think it definitely has advantages over using the Wiki - no namespaces to manage (less structural mess), and the user interface looks simpler too (I am easily frightened by BBcodes!!).
philter5 ·
trogluddite wrote: (I am easily frightened by BBcodes!!).
haha 😀 it sounds funny that a DSP-Machine like you is frightened by BBCODE 😈 trog how many bucks does outsim pay you to keep us happy here LOL 😍
trogluddite ·
philter5 wrote: trog how many bucks does outsim pay you to keep us happy here LOL
He he - not even a free licence! But when I get old and wrinkly and senile, I hope that you will all remember me, and come to help out with wiping up the dribble, changing my diapers etc. 😈 😉
infuzion ·
trogluddite wrote: It lacks the 'coherence' or 'flow' to lead a beginner from 'Step 1', taking concepts in a logical order. That makes it mostly useful to folks who already have a good grounding in programming, - i.e. they already know what they are looking for. That's why I prefer using ,pdf's etc. for my tutorials - for example, imagine trying to use Wikipedia to learn maths; all of the information you need is in there somewhere, but it could never take the place of studying a proper course.
Are you mocking the tutorials? [old link] I think you owe Oddson a hug!
I HATE PDFs; docs are much better HTML IMHO, but there are many multi-target markup systems available.
I thought about making a commercial SM book years ago, but most authors for popular computer subjects (eg JavaScript) are lucky to make for $5000 for a book.
trogluddite ·
infuzion wrote: I think you owe Oddson a hug!
He he - To Mr. Oddson... 😍
And it's not that I dislike Wiki's at all - I guess I have a short attention span and get distracted by all those nice little links to all sorts of cool things besides what I was looking for! 😉
oddson ·
trogluddite wrote: infuzion wrote: I think you owe Oddson a hug!
He he - To Mr. Oddson... 😍
I think it's funny that I'm so associated with the WIKI...
True there's a lot of my effort on it but mostly it was to get something like a component reference available when there was no such thing in the official documentation.
Even the style guide referred to above is specific to the Component Reference portion.
The only other part that I put much effort into was the starter tutorials. Even those I feel bad about abandoning... I had big plans for that.
I think the WIKI is barely usable in its current state and generally agree with Trog about it.
(All this reminds me of something that happened with my job. When I started there was a terrible reference tool that lacked even a basic search feature. Six years later it was replaced by a proper tool. In between I got involved in updating our make-shift reference, adding a search feature, writing and reorganizing extensively etc. until most of the people in our shop thought I had written the damn thing... it was still terrible but so much better than when I started. I was proud of the improvement but embarrassed that people thought its shortcomings were my doing.)
trogluddite ·
oddson wrote: Even those I feel bad about abandoning... I had big plans for that.
Well, I think you should not kick yourself too hard for that, you have still added more 'value' to the Wiki than anybody else that I can think of. I have been there myself with the trigger tutorials, so I appreciate how the good intentions can rapidly begin to feel like a chore. As I said before, whatever medium is used to present these things, there is no magic spell to create the explanations, images, formatting etc. Until I tried it, I never realised just how much time-consuming work it can be, even just to dream up good examples to learn from - and it all takes away from making our own SM projects, playing music, and living life. The good and proper solution would be for OutSim to pay a decent wage to somebody to document their software more fully, complete with the insight of the dev's - but I think that train left the station a long time ago. 🙁
Maybe, a good part-solution would be a Wiki page, or sticky posts, with clearly labelled and categorised links to whatever useful forum posts etc. we find from time to time; something like the Wiki 'External Links' page - that at least would ease the difficulty of the searching; and smaller, more manageable articles could be written at a more leisurely pace.
infuzion ·
trogluddite wrote: Maybe, a good part-solution would be a Wiki page, or sticky posts, with clearly labelled and categorised links to whatever useful forum posts etc. we find from time to time; something like the Wiki 'External Links' page - that at least would ease the difficulty of the searching; and smaller, more manageable articles could be written at a more leisurely pace.
I would have a unique page per subject, & have divisions for References / See Also (maybe make a new header "Forum Posts"?) [old link]
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].