Open galfaroth opened 2 years ago
Would you consider going straight for the MIDI 2.0 protocol? The technology and adoption is still pretty young but might be worth considering for the extended feature set. Also the future proofing factor.
Would you consider going straight for the MIDI 2.0 protocol? The technology and adoption is still pretty young but might be worth considering for the extended feature set. Also the future proofing factor.
of course. I just looked at a few crates, and they don't have good support yet, but they are all in wip status. Do you have any recommended crates?
I must admit, I'm the lead maintainer of the midi2 crate and I'm looking for some early adoption clients.. But yeah you're right, the rust MIDI 2.0 space (and the MIDI 2.0 space in general, tbh) is still very young.
And for the transport layer, there's not yet a platform independent solution. midir doesn't support MIDI 2.0, yet for instance. MacOS is covered for MIDI 2.0 transport support via the coremidi crate - so perhaps it would be a macOS only feature?
I think the specific implementation of midi input and output should go to glicol-cli and web ide.
The language level only needs to be responsible for reading special information.
This repo is responsible for language and audio synthesis.
I just submitted an issue in glicol-cli repo. https://github.com/glicol/glicol-cli/issues/39
I'd wish to connect the signal's input to my midi synthesizer.