well, ok, but you can’t really make a bunch of disinterested devs do stuff if they don’t feel like it. I know you were active then 2.0 came out and that it was out for many months before “all” the plugins were available.
Yep exactly - you announce a proposed release date for an M1 version giving a hopefully interested majority of devs a reasonable amount of time to make any changes they need to, then launch and hope the stragglers catch up asap.
Just like the launch of V2…
In fact it’s so like the launch of a major new Rack version, that I wouldn’t be surprised if M1 support (if it comes) happened at the same time as a major new Rack version… so devs don’t need to update plugins for compatibility twice.
exactly. It runs peachy under Rosetta, not sure what folks have their panties in a bunch about. Release an arm build when next major Rack version comes out and in the meantime use a DAW that can run natively and still load intel VSTs (Reaper works lovely), or bug the DAW maker about it
Yes it does.
I think the only group speaking loudly about it, is the group of DAW users on new Macs that face cross-architecture issues. Particularly the ones that really want to use the ARM native version of the DAW, because of real or imagined advantages, and also wants to use Rack Pro in it. So a small segment. But I’m certainly sympathetic to the wish for “native all the way” but at this point it seems somewhat like a luxury problem.
Yeah, it would probably make sense to combine migration work to the next major version of Rack with any migration work needed for ARM64 native. It will take quite a toll on the library team though, to do all that verification on ARM, or a few good volunteers with M1/M2 machines to help out. That could start already now actually, so if you’re passionate about Rack on ARM64 - bring forth the lists!
I’m not really saying either way, I was just trying to be in the head of Andrew and think about the PROs/CON’s. People will (are) grumble no matter what you do so it’s kind of a strategic calculation of “when and how is the least pain”. I could see him making either decision with good reasoning. A) Just release Rack for ARM64 now, and make all the plugins that build for it without issue available right now, and then have a slow rolling migration of the rest, by the developers themselves. B) Make a whole project of it and aim for everything to be native-ready by a specific date.
I don’t know. I think Rack itself can be released today for ARM with low effort. If 2/3 of the (open source) library builds for ARM with no effort, and seems to just work, and doesn’t take a big toll on the library team (lots of if’s) then it might make good sense to go with option (A), but I’m sure Andrew has a bigger and nastier calculation in his head than my monday-morning-quarterback musings
Reason is facing the same issue. But since many Rack extension dev has long gone, either bankrupt, afterlife, etc etc. There is no way to convert the entire library to M1. And the first step must be done, so others will follow. Vcv users will be happy with 2/3 of the plugins. Personally even 1/5th… if devs like Blamsoft, Erica Synth, Mutable instrument are in in the 1/5th… than I would start investing on VCV like I am in Reason… and many would follow… I will make sure the Reason community will notice it…