How does REAPER do it?

[Goratrix]

Do you know which hosts use too many shared libraries? Have you seen their code? Has anyone seen it who uses the word "bloat"?

yes, you can see those (on windows at least) as .dll files, usually.

[koolkeys]

In all fairness, for the average Reaper users who is used to download a full working copy of his software in a mere 4.4 MBs package including plug ins, install it in 6.5 seconds flat, start it in 2.3 seconds and have the ability to run it from a simple USB drive without having to call the pope for permission to use it, anything else will have a flavoring of bloat attached to it.

But why? That isn't something that all users are going to care about, and not something that is going to be affecting daily use of the software.

I mean, downloading the software is a one time thing. If there is an update, download it again. But if you're working 8 hours a day in front of a program, who cares if it installs and loads up in ten seconds total, or whatever. Or if it runs from a flash drive. Sure, it's cool to be able to. But that's a personal preference.

It's highly possible that there is NO actual definition, and every single person that uses the term is merely speaking of a preference of theirs. Fair enough. But I at least figured I would ask, since nobody has ever actually defined what the heck it really means.

I mean, some people think the Reaper interface is too cluttered and inconsistent, and whatever else they may feel is bad about it. Is that bloat? Maybe to them it is, and it would be just as relevant for them to say Reaper is bloated as it would be for you to say another host is bloated because of it's extra content. Right?

And for the record, while Reaper is at the center of this, my question is more general. I'm not saying I think Reaper is necessarily bloated or not.

Brent

[koolkeys]

Do you know which hosts use too many shared libraries? Have you seen their code? Has anyone seen it who uses the word "bloat"?

yes, you can see those (on windows at least) as .dll files, usually.

True. You can. But how far does it go before you call it "bloat". I mean, most programs access a .dll or two. Which ones define "bloat" in a host?

If a host uses a .dll file that happens to be used by a particular feature that a user needs, is it bloat to that person? Obviously not. .dll files are there to be used, and are a part of Windows application usage. I can't say that I've ever noticed, and to be honest, the small amounts of RAM that a program may use to load extra files like this has never been something that I looked at and was bothered about. It's never been anything significant, at least to me.

Brent

[bullshark]

Bloat is defined as a swelling or inflation.

So, to get back to my example of included content:

If the extra content is offered as optional download and install, then that's not bloat, it's an option.

If the vendor forces you to download and install that content, whether you want/need it or not, then that's pure, unadulterated bloat.

[koolkeys]

Bloat is defined as a swelling or inflation.

So, to get back to my example of included content:

If the extra content is offered as optional download and install, then that's not bloat, it's an option.

If the vendor forces you to download and install that content, then that's pure, unadulterated bloat.

Well, that's fair enough, and to be honest, I agree with you in some cases. But this isn't something that most hosts do. How many downloadable hosts have a huge amount of required content to download?

I don't know of a host out there that requires all content to be installed though. Every host I've used lets you check off what you want and don't want. Is there one that requires both the download and the install?

I do think Ableton should offer a program-only download, and then let you decide if you want to update the live packs once you start the program. It has to update them anyways once you open Live.

But outside of Ableton, I don't know of a host that requires that. I haven't used every single host, mind you. And still, some people use the content and it may not be bloat to them regardless. Just maybe not having to download it every time would be helpful.

Brent

[whyterabbyt]

using too many shared libraries and/or frameworks, instead of coding the needed functionality yourself. those libraries: 1. take up too much RAM, 2. are sometimes coded a lot less efficiently, therefore are slower.

round here we call them 'plugins'. i find them kinda useful myself, its a shame if Reaper doesnt have them.

[aMUSEd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or just generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users.

[aMUSEd]

using too many shared libraries and/or frameworks, instead of coding the needed functionality yourself. those libraries: 1. take up too much RAM, 2. are sometimes coded a lot less efficiently, therefore are slower.

round here we call them 'plugins'. i find them kinda useful myself, its a shame if Reaper doesnt have them.

Yeah plugins and extensions are not necessarily "bloat" - in fact if you look at the above Wiki article it describes programmes that use optional extensions and plugins as a way of avoiding bloat because the core programme can be relatively lean and users can add what features they need rather than it trying to cater for everyone and everything and getting bloated - think Firefox (well maybe before v3 )

[bullshark]

Continuing on to my primary function example.

I'll take Reaper as an example of where bloat could come in.

Reaper primary function is to record audio and MIDI. The way it's setup now, when I get to rehearsal space I just connect hardware, then open Reaper rehearsal project template; that template already has the necessary number of tracks and routing applied, all recording track are named and armed so I'm ready to go in a single mouse click. No bloat.

Now, let's hypothesize that Reaper would add a project media bin as a feature, but every time you open Reaper you have to define where it's going to save it's data, how it's gonna sort it, the window floats above the others so it remove focus from transport etc. So, that function is secondary but it obscures the primary function of the software so, bloat.

[koolkeys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or just generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users.

But even though that is a definition, who determines what falls under that definition?

How much of a larger footprint is bloat? If everything is being used by the program and is needed for some features to work, surely it's just personal preference? If an .exe file is 20MB compared to 200MB, I don't personally care. As long as the program performs well while running, the size of the .exe file means nothing. It's not like there are 3GB .exe files in the host world, are there?

As for features, that is absolutely a personal preference. Nobody can define what is used or not used by end users, can they? Is any feature universally not used by a single user?

I know, I know. I'm just answering everything with a question. But I really do think that when most people say bloat, they are talking about a preference, not anything definitive. Sure, some programs take less resources than others on some machines, but host work differently for different people. Some people say Reaper is the most efficient host they have tried. Others say it's not. Some people say Cubase is a huge resource hog and others say it runs fast and efficiently.

I don't know that there is a real answer to my inquiry. I just wanted to discuss it really. I don't really expect that any answer will be good enough, but every answer is obviously relevant to somebody.

Brent

[koolkeys]

Continuing on to my primary function example.

I'll take Reaper as an example of where bloat could come in.

Reaper primary function is to record audio and MIDI. The way it's setup now, when I get to rehearsal space I just connect hardware, then open Reaper rehearsal project template; that template already has the necessary number of tracks and routing applied, all recording track are named and armed so I'm ready to go in a single mouse click. No bloat.

Now, let's hypothesize that Reaper would add a project media bin as a feature, but every time you open Reaper you have to define where it's going to save it's data, how it's gonna sort it, the window floats above the others so it remove focus from transport etc. So, that function is secondary but it obscures the primary function of the software so, bloat.

Great example. But I do think that if Reaper were to add that feature, it may be useful. Maybe not. But Reaper has to save the audio somewhere, unless it puts all audio into RAM(which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but maybe I'm wrong?). So either Reaper decides where to put audio, or the user does. Is that really so bad? And if you are starting on a project that you will spend days on, but have to click the mouse button once total to define that media folder, is that so bad? Then it puts the audio exactly where you want it. Feature to some, bloat to others.

So while your example does help me to see what you mean, I just wonder how much is too much. I mean, you mentioned downloading Reaper and installing and starting up is super fast(or somebody mentioned it at least). But everyone knows and will probably admit that Reaper takes a lot of configuration for some people to get it how they like. There are options galore, right? Surely that configuration, messing with preferences, setting up comfortable hotkeys, etc. takes time that equals things out. And both things only affect a new user. Once you have used Reaper, you have most things set up, and you aren't installing all the time unless you want to.

So it comes back to this; a feature to some, bloat to others. Right?

Brent

[bullshark]

But even though that is a definition, who determines what falls under that definition?

That depend on the primary function of the software. You first have to define that, then cascade down other functions, making sure they don't interfere with the one higher up in the cascade. If you can achieve that then there's no bloat, just features and options.

Of course nobody will agree on all functions and their relative placement, why some host feel bloated to some and not to others, but there are staples when we're talking recording software.

[bullshark]

Feature to some, bloat to others.

In this example it is purely bloat; let me tell you why:

It's bloat not because of the nature of the feature, but because of the way it's(hypothetically) implemented. It interfere with the primary function of the software, which is higher up in the feature cascade.

There is way to implement a media bin type of feature, and not have it interfere with the higher function of the software. When this is done, it become an improvement, a new feature, instead of bloat.

[koolkeys]

Feature to some, bloat to others.

In this example it is purely bloat; let me tell you why:

It's bloat not because of the nature of the feature, but because of the way it's(hypothetically) implemented. It interfere with the primary function of the software, which is higher up in the feature cascade.

There is way to implement a media bin type of feature, and not have it interfere with the higher function of the software. When this is done, it become an improvement, a new feature, instead of bloat.

Just for the sake of conversation, can you give an example of something that happens in any host that you feel is similar to this? It's not a challenge or anything. You may not have used any other hosts in a while. But it would be better to have a real world example.

I'm not saying that things like this don't exist. I'm just having troubles thinking of something like this in an actual host, at least the ones I've used. I think that most of the time, there is a reasoning behind any feature that is added and the way it's implemented. And most of the time, that implementation is appreciated by some and there are always those who prefer other ways.

The reason I started this whole conversation is because, as many know, I use programs like Cubase and Sonar(not as much these days) and Pro Tools. I think they are pretty efficient when I work with them, and I think the way they implement certain things is killer. But people refer to these hosts as bloatware, and I'm genuinely interested in why this is.

Feel free to use something in a host I use as an example. Not to argue that any host is better or not, but it's easier for me to discuss a feature I am familiar with.

That all being said, I should have been in bed hours ago, so I may have to continue this conversation tomorrow(and I would like to continue it).

Brent

[bullshark]

Just for the sake of conversation, can you give an example of something that happens in any host that you feel is similar to this? It's not a challenge or anything. You may not have used any other hosts in a while. But it would be better to have a real world example.

Afraid not. There's a reason I use an hypothetical Reaper situation, and that's because I haven't tried other DAW software in a long time; well, I did try SI recently, but that didn't feel bloated to me, I just didn't like how things were done in it when compared to Reaper. I did try Cubase SX 2 or 3 a few years back, and that felt bloated to me, but all I remember is the feeling of complete disgust coming out of the demo session at a local dealer, no details. Also tried Sonar,Logic(back when it was PC) and PT, but that too is a few years back.