[OSC_dev] OSC for VBscript and JScript

[Jeff Glatt]

> what problem are you trying to solve that  isn't already
> addressed by the two existing implementations (pyliblo  
> and simpleOSC)?

Sometimes it isn't only about solving a problem per se, as it
is about the _way_ you solve a problem. The way that you
solve a problem is particularly important if you're going to need
to reuse the solution again and again (which would be the case
for OSC app support). Having a solution that is better suited to
your needs means that you don't need to keep repeating whatever
"hacks" you did to try to make something less pertinent work for
you. It can save you time and effort.

As I mentioned before, EasyOSC is a very different API from
LIBLO, so it has its own distinct performance, footprint, and
design (for example, the way it handles/reports errors). Therefore,
whatever Python implementation I come up with will be very
different than pyliblo. (Of course, both can ultimately be used to
output the very same OSC messages. But again, that's just a
small part of what a programmer needs). SimpleOSC is written in
python. A Python extension library is not written in Python. It is
typically written in C (which will be the case for what I do). So
again, the result will be very different.

And don't forget one of the most overlooked aspects of
evaluating a package -- its documentation. Personally, I think that
a package that has incomplete or sparse documentation, or
whose docs are filled with technobabble, is almost unusable. I
put a lot of manual effort into documentation. (Often it takes me
longer to write the docs than the tool itself). I've done numerous
developer tools (ie, EasyOSC isn't the first "dev tool" that I've
done). I often solicit feedback from people who choose to use
those tools, and an often cited reason is the docs with those tools.
Docs should definitely be considered in any code audit. And I do
think EasyOSC's docs (and any associated docs I'd do) is notably
different from the other current implementations (most which use
something called Doxygen).

In conclusion, if you do a code audit of EasyOSC (or any python
implementation I'd build around it), I think you'd see plenty of
differences with the other implementations.