Talk:Play recorded sounds

I think this task is massively overcomplex at the moment. Too many features mixed into one. This task should instead be just doing simple playback (and possibly mixing of multiple sounds) and the other bits moved to additional tasks. This will make it both easier to implement and easier to read for specific features. —Donal Fellows 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, I find not so clear the required/suggested cathegorization: should we use as == header the "lib/system" used and as === the language? --ShinTakezou 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to say keep with the language focus used elsewhere. Overall site consistency is a good goal. :-) —Donal Fellows 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

General reply: On reflection, it would probably be better to split up the task so the examples of any one are more all of the same thing. However, I don't think categorizing by language rather than audio facility is appropriate because audio is not usually a language feature and the details depend far more on the audio facility than what language you talk to it in. Also, User:Short Circuit has expressed interest (on IRC yesterday) in expanding Rosetta Code to other types of comparison: libraries, algorithms, paradigms. --Kevin Reid 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)