| |
The LDRAW tools (including MLCAD) are available for free download in binary
form. But the source code is kept private. I’d like to offer a word of
encouragement to the authors and maintainers of the code to consider opening the
source code. This would allow other users who have the programming skills to
submit patches to fix bugs and add features.
For more information about Open Source please see the
Open Source Initiative Web site. They explain it a
lot better than I can.
Imagine setting up a SourceForge instance or at least a CVS server on ldraw.org
and accepting patches from all and sundry. The author/maintainer would maintain
control over the project, while allowing the LDRAW tools to be a
community-supported system instead of having to do all the work themselves.
Think about it ...
--Bill.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
> The LDRAW tools (including MLCAD) are available for free download in binary
> form. But the source code is kept private. I'd like to offer a word of
> encouragement to the authors and maintainers of the code to consider opening
> the source code. This would allow other users who have the programming
> skills to submit patches to fix bugs and add features.
>
> For more information about Open Source please see the
> <http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative> Web site. They explain
> it a lot better than I can.
>
> Imagine setting up a SourceForge instance or at least a CVS server on
> ldraw.org and accepting patches from all and sundry. The author/maintainer
> would maintain control over the project, while allowing the LDRAW tools to be
> a community-supported system instead of having to do all the work themselves.
>
> Think about it ...
>
> --Bill.
For the record there are a number of LDraw tools that are open source. Here's a
(incomplete) list:
LDLite
LDGLite
LDraw Design Pad
LDList
LSynth
Mac Brick Cad
The open source initiative is great and I fully support it but the main thing
going against it is what I like to call "Open Source Snobs". Basically these
people are a small cross section of the community that think that any program
that is not open source isn't worth their attention. This attitude of elitism
turns me off from the open source idea a little bit simply because I feel they
these individuals are dictating to me instead of presenting thier point of view
and allow me to decide what is best. It would be one thing if these "snobs"
were a quiet corner of the community but they seem be the most vocal and "in
your face" people out there. I think this leaves a bad taste in the mouth of
potential converts.
-Orion (who just donned his fireproof suit)
|
|
| |
Hi.
I like being able to say, “That’s mine that is.” about programs I write. With
open source you can say, “I started that.” Both of which I think are great
things to be able to say but personally I prefer the first one. It could just be
chance that some of the LDraw tools developers feel the same way.
You don’t have to do all the work, you chose to do all the work. That’s ware
half the enjoyment is, in doing it your self. All just my opinion of course. Cue
shameless plug for my closed source LDraw editor. www.mr-bucket.co.uk/GLIDE/
Actually you have got me thinking. Perhaps I will open source some of the
plugins. Like the LDraw file to VRML plugin. Once it’s in an acceptable state
and almost works.
--Dan.
|
|
| |
I can only speak for myself. I am a self-made programmer with huge voids in my
programming skills. I am probably breaking every existing convention of good
programming habits.
I already know that, and I don't wish to have that confirmed those who know how
to write perfectly correct code.
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> I can only speak for myself. I am a self-made programmer with huge voids in my
> programming skills. I am probably breaking every existing convention of good
> programming habits.
>
> I already know that, and I don't wish to have that confirmed those who know how
> to write perfectly correct code.
This is just curiosity, and feel free not to answer. To clarify, you don't want
people criticizing the code you put your energy into? Or, do you not want people
replacing your code with 'perfectly correct' code?
As for the open source question, I support open source initiatives, and I like
the idea, and I'll encourage developers to do it. However, I am not of the
mindset to *insist* anyone who is writing software in their free time,
voluntarily, must make the software open source. It is that individual's project
and they can treat their source how they choose.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> For the record there are a number of LDraw tools that are open source. Here's a
> (incomplete) list: [...]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. However, they represent only a portion of the
LDRAW tool set.
> The open source initiative is great and I fully support it but the main thing
> going against it is what I like to call "Open Source Snobs". Basically these
> people are a small cross section of the community that think that any program
> that is not open source isn't worth their attention. This attitude of elitism
> turns me off from the open source idea a little bit simply because I feel they
> these individuals are dictating to me instead of presenting thier point of view
> and allow me to decide what is best. It would be one thing if these "snobs"
> were a quiet corner of the community but they seem be the most vocal and "in
> your face" people out there. I think this leaves a bad taste in the mouth of
> potential converts.
I hope that's not an accusation. For the sake of civility I will assume you are
not talking about me in particular.
Open Source is a great way to achieve a high quality product without a paid team
of developers. Commercial software has its place, too. But I feel that unless
a developer is hoping to some day make money from his or her project, keeping it
closed source and distribituting it for free means missing out on a great
opportunity.
--Bill.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Daniel Bennett wrote:
> Hi.
> I like being able to say, “That’s mine that is.” about programs I write. With
> open source you can say, “I started that.” Both of which I think are great
> things to be able to say but personally I prefer the first one. It could just be
> chance that some of the LDraw tools developers feel the same way.
> You don’t have to do all the work, you chose to do all the work. That’s ware
> half the enjoyment is, in doing it your self. All just my opinion of course.
Well, it depends on how you structure it. Some open source projects have a
single developer managing it and occasional patches being sent in, while others
are more of a group effort. I think that "That's mine that is" still applies in
the former case.
--Bill.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> As for the open source question, I support open source initiatives, and I like
> the idea, and I'll encourage developers to do it. However, I am not of the
> mindset to *insist* anyone who is writing software in their free time,
> voluntarily, must make the software open source. It is that individual's project
> and they can treat their source how they choose.
I don't think anyone said you have to insist anything.
I just think that Open Source would fit in well with the philosophy of
Ldraw.org, and would provide an avenue for code to be improved without depending
on one person to do it all. After all, the parts files are all Open Source
after a fashion, already.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
> I hope that's not an accusation. For the sake of civility I will assume you are
> not talking about me in particular.
Absolutly not. You asked without demanding. That goes a long way with me.
Like I said, the vast majority of the open source proponents are helpful and
courteous. It's a small portion of the community that ruins it for some.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > As for the open source question, I support open source initiatives, and I like
> > the idea, and I'll encourage developers to do it. However, I am not of the
> > mindset to *insist* anyone who is writing software in their free time,
> > voluntarily, must make the software open source. It is that individual's project
> > and they can treat their source how they choose.
>
> I don't think anyone said you have to insist anything.
I was speaking abstractly.
> I just think that Open Source would fit in well with the philosophy of
> Ldraw.org, and would provide an avenue for code to be improved without depending
> on one person to do it all. After all, the parts files are all Open Source
> after a fashion, already.
Yes, I agree. And it was good that you brought the topic up - I'm glad it will
get developers thinking about open source.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > I can only speak for myself. I am a self-made programmer with huge voids in my
> > programming skills. I am probably breaking every existing convention of good
> > programming habits.
> >
> > I already know that, and I don't wish to have that confirmed those who know how
> > to write perfectly correct code.
>
> This is just curiosity, and feel free not to answer. To clarify, you don't want
> people criticizing the code you put your energy into?
That is closest.
> Or, do you not want people
> replacing your code with 'perfectly correct' code?
I am not familiar to the exact meaning of open source, but I guess it can be a
little like when you submit the dat code for a part to the PT. Suddenly you find
that it has been changed or even renamed. In almost all cases to the better, but
sometimes in a way you disagree to. (like the re-oriented studs in
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x716.dat )
I know, I know. I once stated that all my LDraw related work is public domain
and anyone can do whatever they wish with it without my explicit permission. But
I am in the process of re-thinking that policy...
(( On one hand, I wish things to be correctly handled, but on the other hand,
when things really are handled correctly and rules and guidelines are drawn up,
the text mass and the complicated language makes me too tired to go through it
all ))
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > > I can only speak for myself. I am a self-made programmer with huge voids in my
> > > programming skills. I am probably breaking every existing convention of good
> > > programming habits.
> > >
> > > I already know that, and I don't wish to have that confirmed those who know how
> > > to write perfectly correct code.
> >
> > This is just curiosity, and feel free not to answer. To clarify, you don't want
> > people criticizing the code you put your energy into?
>
> That is closest.
I understand the feeling. For me, when I open up my work (I don't code, but I do
write, papers, a book, proposals, etc) to others, I expect and welcome
criticism, so long as it is framed constructively. If I were to venture a guess,
you aren't so concerned about people making constructive suggestions as you are
with them being harsh while dissecting the work?
I know it is a difficult step, because I've had to get over it myself, but my
advice to you would be; realize that if they are being harsh in their cricitism,
the problem lies with them, and not with you. If they take the time to write a
well-reasoned critique, encouraging you and teaching you 'proper' structures,
then appreciate it. Try not to take offense if you sense someone is merely
criticizing your work to make themselves feel superior.
> > Or, do you not want people
> > replacing your code with 'perfectly correct' code?
> I know, I know. I once stated that all my LDraw related work is public domain
> and anyone can do whatever they wish with it without my explicit permission. But
> I am in the process of re-thinking that policy...
>
> (( On one hand, I wish things to be correctly handled, but on the other hand,
> when things really are handled correctly and rules and guidelines are drawn up,
> the text mass and the complicated language makes me too tired to go through it
> all ))
That isn't the intent of those drawing up the rules, whether it be procedures on
the PT or organizational bylaws. If there are cases where you feel something is
too thick, especially having English as a second language, I hope you feel
comfortable speaking up and asking for some simplification for non-native
English speakers. I would hope that drawing up of rules doesn't disenfranchise
anyone because it is simply too difficult to understand, and I would hate to
have those people not speak up (constructively) to address the issue for them.
-Tim
|
|
| |
Bill
As has been pointed out, many of the programs (including mine) have freely
available source code.
Several people have suggested I post my application on SourceForge and develop
from there, this has merits and is used by Don with LdGLite, however I have
deliberately chosen not to follow that path.
Speaking for myself, I am a single developer who happens to be comfortable
working on my code and to be frank I don’t particularly want assistance because
MBC is both my creation and hobby.
On the other hand I’d welcome input (assistance) in creating the graphical part
of the interface and manuals.
I do however require my user base to, review my current work, give me new ideas
and offer basic encouragement or the program will run out of steam.
As to the concept of peer review, I have no problem with constructive criticism
- in fact I welcome it.
However there is another item, I’m a self taught programmer (and with nearly 25
years of coding experience) I’ve had plenty of time to reinforce some bad
habits. I know my code grows organically and generally it has a few loose ends
floating around at any one time and it is sporadically commented. Not ideal for
a 3rd party to review.
That is, coding to me is a process of adding new features, making existing code
more elegant and (unfortunately) bug fixing. The organic nature of the code
development combined with an application’s basic evolution towards greater
complexity makes me openly question the benefit of posting the source. Because
with each release it simply becomes more cryptic.
As to others using my code, I have no problem as long as it is not plagiarised.
That is acknowledge the source and if you earn money from it pay a royalty.
Have you ever tried reading (never mind following) another persons code for
custom utilisation in you application. My experience is that normally it is
easier and faster to write yor own material from scratch.
I honestly don’t believe that many people really care about the inner workings
and even fewer want to review it, so this is generally a non-issue, but as said
at the beginning my source is freely available.
Andrew...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> I can only speak for myself. I am a self-made programmer with huge voids in my
> programming skills. I am probably breaking every existing convention of good
> programming habits.
>
> I already know that, and I don't wish to have that confirmed those who know how
> to write perfectly correct code.
I'm trained and skilled in programming, but I learned the Borland C++ builder
environment as I went. I have yet to figure out how to split my files into
subsystems. I tried it and had trouble getting it to work for LPub.
As it stands, LPub is basically 8000 lines of code all in one file. Despite
this I promised to give away LPub's source. I figure if anyone complains about
how LPub is written they can take it over.
After recently having trouble with computer systems, I've decided that I'm going
to ship LPub with source, so that in case I lose things again, someone out there
will have the source.
>
>
> /Tore
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
The LDRAW tools (including MLCAD) are available for free download in binary
form. But the source code is kept private. I’d like to offer a word of
encouragement to the authors and maintainers of the code to consider opening
the source code. This would allow other users who have the programming
skills to submit patches to fix bugs and add features.
For more information about Open Source please see the
Open Source Initiative Web site. They explain
it a lot better than I can.
Imagine setting up a SourceForge instance or at least a CVS server on
ldraw.org and accepting patches from all and sundry. The author/maintainer
would maintain control over the project, while allowing the LDRAW tools to be
a community-supported system instead of having to do all the work themselves.
Think about it ...
|
I gave away the source to LSynth and publicly asked for help, given that it
really has never made it past the proof of concept stage. No one has taken me
up on it, so going open source, does not neccessadily get you anywhere.
Kevin
|
|
| |
I'll be the first to appologize for not having jumped in on this yet : (
It's on my list of things that I want to make time for though : )
The problem here isn't the OSS paradigm, it's the relatively small
audience. It can only grow though ...
-JSM
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I gave away the source to LSynth and publicly asked for help, given that it
> really has never made it past the proof of concept stage. No one has taken me
> up on it, so going open source, does not neccessadily get you anywhere.
> Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jason S. Mantor wrote:
> Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > I gave away the source to LSynth and publicly asked for help, given
> > that it really has never made it past the proof of concept stage.
> > No one has taken me up on it, so going open source, does not
> > neccessadily get you anywhere.
>
> I'll be the first to appologize for not having jumped in on this yet : (
> It's on my list of things that I want to make time for though : )
> The problem here isn't the OSS paradigm, it's the relatively small
> audience. It can only grow though ...
Yes, with a wider audience or a desperate need, it's much more likely
someone will be brave enough to jump in and contribute. It also helps
if the project seems active. I tried to generate some activity by
making a portable version of the lsynth GUI:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lsynth/lsynth/
But that also went nowhere. Perhaps all the lsynth users have access to
Windows, or prefer the command line?
It also helps to advertise. This page makes no mention of the
sourceforge project with the source code.
http://www.kclague.net/LSynth/index.htm
How do you expect people to find it?
Now, I confess, I don't own the book, so I don't really know what lsynth
does that the other hose generators don't do. Because of that, I don't
really feel qualified to lead the project. However without a leader,
the project will certainly languish. Some ideas have been entertained
in the past such as string, chains, and an LDDP plugin version of the
GUI. Does anyone want this stuff bad enough to take the lead?
Don
PS. We just picked up a spybot and it comes with hoses and fiber optics,
so who knows, maybe we'll discover an lsynth need real soon now...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
<snip>
>
> Yes, with a wider audience or a desperate need, it's much more likely
> someone will be brave enough to jump in and contribute. It also helps
> if the project seems active. I tried to generate some activity by
> making a portable version of the lsynth GUI:
>
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lsynth/lsynth/
>
> But that also went nowhere. Perhaps all the lsynth users have access to
> Windows, or prefer the command line?
>
> It also helps to advertise. This page makes no mention of the
> sourceforge project with the source code.
>
> http://www.kclague.net/LSynth/index.htm
>
> How do you expect people to find it?
I expect people to ask me.
>
> Now, I confess, I don't own the book, so I don't really know what lsynth
> does that the other hose generators don't do. Because of that, I don't
> really feel qualified to lead the project. However without a leader,
> the project will certainly languish. Some ideas have been entertained
> in the past such as string, chains, and an LDDP plugin version of the
> GUI. Does anyone want this stuff bad enough to take the lead?
LSynth is an all in one synthesizer in that it does hose and band type
synthesis, and it is stand alone, and the synthesis process does not involve
manual copying of stuff out of, and back into the LDraw file. Also you do not
need a GUI to run LSynth. MLCad (or whatever CAD entry system you want to use)
is the only GUI you really need to specify what you want synthesized. Using
MLCAD and LDraw parts, you specify what you want synthesized directly in your
LDraw file.
To use Fred Glockner's hose synthesizer (admittedly better especially with
respect to true length), you have to have emacs installed and know how to use
it. I think it also only handles one kind of hose, but I may be wrong. I know
it doesn't support fiber optic cables or electrical cables.
Philo's belt generator supports only two pulleys (varying diameters). Philo's
belt generator is only avaiable as a GUI interface, which again requires users
to put stuff into the GUI, spit out a file, and then use that file in a model.
The user is responsible for making sure the diameters in the GUI match the
diameters of the pulleys in their LDraw file where they are used. LSynth has
you specify the rubber band description using the very pulleys that you use in
your LDraw model.
LSynth supports as many pulleys as you want (fixed number of varying diameters),
where the third pulley and beyond can exist outside the band pushing in. Also
LSynth can support rubber bands that cross over themselves. Using the same band
synthesis algorithm, LSynth can create rubber treads, plastic treads and chains.
>
> Don
>
> PS. We just picked up a spybot and it comes with hoses and fiber optics,
> so who knows, maybe we'll discover an lsynth need real soon now...
When trying to produce professional level building instructions that match LEGO
and have a reliable and easy to use process to get them, LSynth is the easiest
and most flexible tool available.
Thanks for writing an alternate LSynth GUI. I didn't want to write one but
Syngress insisted.
As we speak, I'm finishing up complete support for LSynth in LPub so that the
synthesized files (much larger file size) are only temporary byproducts of the
overall rendering process.
Michael is also working LSynth support for MLCad.
The biggest single issue with LPub is its horrible inefficiency with respect to
file size. The synthesized files can be really huge. By adding an angular
resolution control, LSynth should be able to merge many of the spline points
into one single scaled hose cross section segment.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> To use Fred Glockner's hose synthesizer (admittedly better especially with
> respect to true length), you have to have emacs installed and know how to use
> it. I think it also only handles one kind of hose, but I may be wrong. I know
> it doesn't support fiber optic cables or electrical cables.
Don't forget LDDP's generator (soon to be a plugin again). It's based on
Fredrik Glockner's emacs code and supports:
73590B.DAT Hose Flexible 8.5L with Tabs (750.dat for endpoints)
73590A.DAT Hose Flexible 8.5L without Tabs (752.dat for endpoints)
Technic Ribbed Hoses (79.dat for endpoints)
Technic Flexible Axles (stud3a.dat for endpoints)
Technic Flex-System Hose (76.dat for endpoints)
Hose 12L (Parts not yet official)
LDDP also supports the processing of code through LSynth.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
The LDRAW tools (including MLCAD) are available for free download in binary
form. But the source code is kept private. I’d like to offer a word of
encouragement to the authors and maintainers of the code to consider opening
the source code. This would allow other users who have the programming
skills to submit patches to fix bugs and add features.
For more information about Open Source please see the
Open Source Initiative Web site. They explain
it a lot better than I can.
Imagine setting up a SourceForge instance or at least a CVS server on
ldraw.org and accepting patches from all and sundry. The author/maintainer
would maintain control over the project, while allowing the LDRAW tools to
be a community-supported system instead of having to do all the work
themselves.
Think about it ...
|
I gave away the source to LSynth and publicly asked for help, given that it
really has never made it past the proof of concept stage. No one has taken
me up on it, so going open source, does not neccessadily get you anywhere.
Kevin
|
That is my experience. Nobody has said anything about the source code I have
posted. And not all of it was my yucky code, but some awesome OpenGL code
written by an OpenGL wiz.
And I have tried to read both ldglite, MBC, and LDView source code. It is all
over my head anyway. So I totally understand why nobody gives feedback. Those
who do know how to read complex code aren’t really interested in reading it
because they would rather code it from scratch using techniques they are familar
with.
What I would like to see, is instead of open source, I would just LOVE to see a
unified developer effort to create an LDraw library, like opengl, openal,
libpng, libsdl, openssl, openldap, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah, we all have our editor preferences. But what about utilites? Does anyone
really cares how a fractal landscape generator works? Or file format
converters? I would like to see these made open source and try to make them as
cross platform as possible (since I can’t use any utilities currently out there
on my Mac except L3P). This is what could be in the libraries.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> Don't forget LDDP's generator (soon to be a plugin again).
Cool! I actually like the plugin idea even better than open source
(although the two ideas do work together well). In my LDRAW fantasy
world (which is probably based on Karim's Artemis paper) all the
really nifty functionality is provided by plugins that can be shared
by ALL the Ldraw programs.
> LDDP also supports the processing of code through LSynth.
Is that via a plugin wrapper? If not, is there any chance you could
convert it to use a plugin wrapper so we can all share it?
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > It also helps to advertise. This page makes no mention of the
> > sourceforge project with the source code.
> > http://www.kclague.net/LSynth/index.htm
> > How do you expect people to find it?
>
> I expect people to ask me.
Then you should suggest that on the web page, or in the book.
People forget what they discussed on lugnet after a week or so.
[snip: many, many lsynth features. It's time for me to buy the book]
> > PS. We just picked up a spybot and it comes with hoses and fiber
> > optics, so who knows, maybe we'll discover an lsynth need real soon
> > now...
>
> When trying to produce professional level building instructions that
> match LEGO and have a reliable and easy to use process to get them,
> LSynth is the easiest and most flexible tool available.
>
> Thanks for writing an alternate LSynth GUI. I didn't want to write
> one but Syngress insisted.
>
> As we speak, I'm finishing up complete support for LSynth in LPub so
> that the synthesized files (much larger file size) are only
> temporary byproducts of the overall rendering process.
>
> Michael is also working LSynth support for MLCad.
>
> The biggest single issue with LPub is its horrible inefficiency with
> respect to file size. The synthesized files can be really huge. By
> adding an angular resolution control, LSynth should be able to merge
> many of the spline points into one single scaled hose cross section
> segment.
That sounds good, but will lsynthcp still be a separate program? I
still want to create an LDDP style plugin wrapper for lsynthcp so it
can be incorporated into both LDDP and ldglite, allowing you to
preview synthesized parts without having to run them through POV.
If I remember, I fiddled with some changes to lsynthcp to make this
easier, but we all got tied up in a discussion over command line
options vs meta-command changes that never got resolved.
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8250
Someone mentioned getopt and everyone seemed to like it but me, because
I'd already started working with the original meta-command syntax.
Did that getopt syntax stuff ever go anywhere, or was that just a red
herring?
Anyhow, I suppose I could just check the changes into CVS and see if
anyone notices. ;^)
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > Don't forget LDDP's generator (soon to be a plugin again).
>
> Cool! I actually like the plugin idea even better than open source
> (although the two ideas do work together well). In my LDRAW fantasy
> world (which is probably based on Karim's Artemis paper) all the
> really nifty functionality is provided by plugins that can be shared
> by ALL the Ldraw programs.
Yes, I think we can go in that direction. It would certainly make updating
errors a lot simpler. And since most of LDDP's functions manipulate the text in
some way it's easily doable.
> > LDDP also supports the processing of code through LSynth.
>
> Is that via a plugin wrapper? If not, is there any chance you could
> convert it to use a plugin wrapper so we can all share it?
No, but there is hope. See above
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, James Reynolds wrote:
> What I would like to see, is instead of open source, I would just LOVE to see
> a unified developer effort to create an LDraw library, like opengl, openal,
> libpng, libsdl, openssl, openldap, etc, etc, etc.
I have the beginnings of this with the DATBase, DATModel, and L3Check units used
for LDDP. I've been considering splintering these units off into their own
project. The only thing hindering me is the (apparent) lack of Delphi
programmers in the LDraw community. If there is enough interest I can step up
my plans.
-Orion
|
|
| |
"Orion Pobursky" <orion@dontaddthis.pobursky.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Hw88DL.1D7H@lugnet.com...
>
> I have the beginnings of this with the DATBase, DATModel, and L3Check • units used
> for LDDP. I've been considering splintering these units off into their • own
> project. The only thing hindering me is the (apparent) lack of Delphi
> programmers in the LDraw community.
I'm using Delphi 5 (Both at work and for fun). Haven't really looked much at
LDDP yet but the plugin architecture sounds very interesting.
Unfortunately, Delphi isn't the best choice when going cross-platform. Kylix
(Delphi and C++ for Linux) is a separate product, and Borland has more or
less stopped developing it (at least they have 'promised' "no updates during
2004").
FreePascal is probably the best route for cross-platform in Pascal, it
covers quite a lot of the Delphi language (but not the VCL - Visual
Component Library, of course).
Cross-platform GUI development is not very fun, you can only use the common
elements of all systems, and it's difficult to keep to the 'style' of the
hosting OS. Better to have a pluggable system, and develop separate GUI
parts for each host OS...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> "Orion Pobursky" <orion@dontaddthis.pobursky.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Hw88DL.1D7H@lugnet.com...
> >
> > I have the beginnings of this with the DATBase, DATModel, and L3Check units used
> > for LDDP. I've been considering splintering these units off into their own
> > project. The only thing hindering me is the (apparent) lack of Delphi
> > programmers in the LDraw community.
>
> I'm using Delphi 5 (Both at work and for fun). Haven't really looked much at
> LDDP yet but the plugin architecture sounds very interesting.
>
> Unfortunately, Delphi isn't the best choice when going cross-platform. Kylix
> (Delphi and C++ for Linux) is a separate product, and Borland has more or
> less stopped developing it (at least they have 'promised' "no updates during
> 2004").
>
> FreePascal is probably the best route for cross-platform in Pascal, it
> covers quite a lot of the Delphi language (but not the VCL - Visual
> Component Library, of course).
>
> Cross-platform GUI development is not very fun, you can only use the common
> elements of all systems, and it's difficult to keep to the 'style' of the
> hosting OS. Better to have a pluggable system, and develop separate GUI
> parts for each host OS...
I'm fairly certain that my DATBase and L3Check units (individual linetype
manipulating classes and Error checking from L3P code) are compatible with a
variety of Pascal compliers. DATModel (classes for model level maniplation) may
pose a problem. None of my units use any VCL that I'm aware of. I'll have a
look into FreePascal and keep you posted on the results.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> I'm using Delphi 5 (Both at work and for fun). Haven't really looked
> much at LDDP yet but the plugin architecture sounds very interesting.
You should take a peek at it. I use it to open an ldlist part finder
window so I can drag and drop parts into ldglite.
Hey that reminds me, the new colored fonts in ldlist 4 look bad on
my system. Here's a picture:
http://ldglite.sf.net/ldlist4.png
The font used in the previous version of ldlist didn't have this
problem. FWIW I usually go with the "Large Fonts" setting in Windows
because I'm old.
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
<snip>
> That sounds good, but will lsynthcp still be a separate program? I
> still want to create an LDDP style plugin wrapper for lsynthcp so it
> can be incorporated into both LDDP and ldglite, allowing you to
> preview synthesized parts without having to run them through POV.
> If I remember, I fiddled with some changes to lsynthcp to make this
> easier, but we all got tied up in a discussion over command line
> options vs meta-command changes that never got resolved.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8250
lsynthcp will always be a seperate program so that other programs can use it as
a library sort of thing, like Lars taught me about L3P.
>
> Someone mentioned getopt and everyone seemed to like it but me, because
> I'd already started working with the original meta-command syntax.
> Did that getopt syntax stuff ever go anywhere, or was that just a red
> herring?
I don't like the getopt format because it is so different than standard issue
meta-commands.
>
> Anyhow, I suppose I could just check the changes into CVS and see if
> anyone notices. ;^)
Well, I have to get hooked in and put in a few of my changes as well.
>
> Don
Another thing I'd like to do is stop hard coding constraints and synthesis parts
into LSynth (at least for band synthesis), and move those controls externally to
a file.
Defining part/radius/orientation for bands should be easy. Defining cross
sections and end parts for hoses should be easy too.
Kevin
|
|
| |
As a programmer for some 28+ years I have extreme reservations about Open source
or as i call it “socialized” programming.
The entire concept of open source flies in the face of intellectual property
rights. That being who owns the rights to distrubute the software as they see
fit, to control how it works, to control what is done with it.
I have written in excess of a million lines of code over the years on everything
from giant mainframes to laptops, so i have a pretty good idea of how the world
works when it comes to programming. Every line of code i have written as part of
my employment belongs legally and completely to the company I was working for at
the time I wrote it or the client it was written for. The code that I have
written for personal use, and there is a lot of it, is mine to do as i see fit.
I own it. I have from time to time given programs to others for their use, but
under the agreement that it will always remain under my control.
I suppose one of the reservations i have with open source, expecially Linux is
that is almost a cult type of mentality. All pray at the alter of Linux or be
ground into the dust, flamed, spammed, hacked, abused.
Now I am not saying that all open source is bad, or that giving away programs
for use is bad. What I am saying is that the open source community believes that
they have the right to modify, re-write, used, abuse, and violate ownership
rights on every program, ever file type, every interface that they seem to like.
and anyone that stands in their way is evil, hence the way they treat Bill
Gates.
Let the flaming, hacking, and denial of service attacks begin.
|
|
| |
Bill Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> As a programmer for some 28+ years I have extreme reservations about Open source
> or as i call it "socialized" programming.
I spent a bit of time working out how to reply to this mail without coming
across as an open source zealot :)
> The entire concept of open source flies in the face of intellectual property
> rights. That being who owns the rights to distrubute the software as they see
> fit, to control how it works, to control what is done with it.
I always thought open source relied on the concept of copyright (one of the
3 major concepts in intellectual property). It is copyright that allows an
open source programmer to say.
'I wrote this code, you can do with it as you wish' (placing it in the public
domain)
or
'I wrote this code, you can reditribute/modify/whatever this code, providing
you
adhere to this license' (GPL, BSD, Mozilla, most of the licences that are
considered open source licences work like this)
This is exactly the same laws that allow commercial software companies to say
'I wrote this code, don't copy it without our permission' (This final line is
the default state of any created work, and as such doesn't have to be
explicitly
stated.
</copyright 101>
> I have written in excess of a million lines of code over the years on everything
> from giant mainframes to laptops, so i have a pretty good idea of how the world
> works when it comes to programming. Every line of code i have written as part of
> my employment belongs legally and completely to the company I was working for at
> the time I wrote it or the client it was written for.
This is fairly standard, and is written into my contract too.
> The code that I have
> written for personal use, and there is a lot of it, is mine to do as i see fit.
> I own it. I have from time to time given programs to others for their use, but
> under the agreement that it will always remain under my control.
This is your absolute right under the Berne convention, and the decades of
copyright law that have been written since. Just as in those same laws you
are allowed to give some/all of your rights away.
> I suppose one of the reservations i have with open source, expecially Linux is
> that is almost a cult type of mentality. All pray at the alter of Linux or be
> ground into the dust, flamed, spammed, hacked, abused.
I certainly realise where you are coming from on this, but I suspect there is
only a small minority of people involved in this misbehaviour, even if they
are
very active. My best advice is 'don't take slashdot to seriously' :)
> Now I am not saying that all open source is bad, or that giving away programs
> for use is bad. What I am saying is that the open source community believes that
> they have the right to modify, re-write, used, abuse, and violate ownership
> rights on every program, ever file type, every interface that they seem to like.
> and anyone that stands in their way is evil, hence the way they treat Bill
> Gates.
Open source as such wouldn't allow you to modify/copy/mangle etc the code to
that
which you do not have the rights too. Although there is a tendency amongst
open source advocates and users too *wish* that all code was open to them in
the
same way as their open source apps.
> Let the flaming, hacking, and denial of service attacks begin.
I'm a very lazy hacker, could you please send me your credit card number
to my email address and I'll see what I can arrange :)
My experiences of using, writing and contributing too open source projects
have been very positive.
I would publicly like to thank Leonardo Zide (who wrote Leocad) and
Don Heyse (who wrote ldglite) for making their programs open source.
And to all the other lego programmers whose programs are open source that
I haven't had a play with yet :)
Hopefully this hasn't come across as an OpenSource rant :)
Peter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> lsynthcp will always be a seperate program so that other programs
> can use it as a library sort of thing, like Lars taught me about L3P.
Ah, that's good to hear.
> > Someone mentioned getopt and everyone seemed to like it but me, because
> > I'd already started working with the original meta-command syntax.
> > Did that getopt syntax stuff ever go anywhere, or was that just a red
> > herring?
>
> I don't like the getopt format because it is so different than
> standard issue meta-commands.
Waitaminute!! That's what I said a year ago, but you appeared to
get suckered in by the getopt proposal. Oh well.
> > Anyhow, I suppose I could just check the changes into CVS and see if
> > anyone notices. ;^)
>
> Well, I have to get hooked in and put in a few of my changes as well.
Short instructions:
http://www.netbeans.org/kb/articles/sourceforge.html
Medium instructions:
http://delphree.clexpert.com/pages/sf_howto.htm
Long instructions:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=766&group_id=1
> Another thing I'd like to do is stop hard coding constraints and
> synthesis parts into LSynth (at least for band synthesis), and move
> those controls externally to a file.
>
> Defining part/radius/orientation for bands should be easy. Defining
> cross sections and end parts for hoses should be easy too.
You should consider using ldraw.ini for this on Windows. Then it can
use the portable version of getprivateprofilestring(). Or were you
thinking of passing a config filename to lsynthcp on the command line,
or maybe just a DAT file with a bunch of meta commands? ldconfig.ldr?
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > lsynthcp will always be a seperate program so that other programs
> > can use it as a library sort of thing, like Lars taught me about L3P.
>
> Ah, that's good to hear.
>
> > > Someone mentioned getopt and everyone seemed to like it but me, because
> > > I'd already started working with the original meta-command syntax.
> > > Did that getopt syntax stuff ever go anywhere, or was that just a red
> > > herring?
> >
> > I don't like the getopt format because it is so different than
> > standard issue meta-commands.
>
> Waitaminute!! That's what I said a year ago, but you appeared to
> get suckered in by the getopt proposal. Oh well.
Well, I actually want to take this kind of thing to the LSC for review.
>
> > > Anyhow, I suppose I could just check the changes into CVS and see if
> > > anyone notices. ;^)
> >
> > Well, I have to get hooked in and put in a few of my changes as well.
>
> Short instructions:
> http://www.netbeans.org/kb/articles/sourceforge.html
> Medium instructions:
> http://delphree.clexpert.com/pages/sf_howto.htm
> Long instructions:
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=766&group_id=1
>
> > Another thing I'd like to do is stop hard coding constraints and
> > synthesis parts into LSynth (at least for band synthesis), and move
> > those controls externally to a file.
> >
> > Defining part/radius/orientation for bands should be easy. Defining
> > cross sections and end parts for hoses should be easy too.
>
> You should consider using ldraw.ini for this on Windows. Then it can
> use the portable version of getprivateprofilestring(). Or were you
> thinking of passing a config filename to lsynthcp on the command line,
> or maybe just a DAT file with a bunch of meta commands? ldconfig.ldr?
I had not made it this far. I had just made it to the concept phase.
There are a few things that control hose synthesis; hose type, hose segment part
type, segment orientation, segment diameter, and the constraints.
I'd like a file format that defines a hose type name, and its attributes (hose
cross section segment, the oriention of the hose axis in the cross section part,
and the outer diameter of the hose).
We might also want some special condiftions for end of hose issues. e.g. flared
hose, or hose ends with special symbols on the end so we can color code the hose
ends, etc.
I'd also like to define the part types used for individual hose constraints.
Eventually I'd like to add new hose constraint types. For example, a constraint
that says "you have to go through this point, but I don't care about the
orientation of the axis at this point."
For band synthesis, I'd like to be able to define band types: round cross
section rubber bands, square cross section rubber bands, new technic chain, old
technic chain, plastic linked tread, rubber tread. For each type, I'd like to
define the cross section part, its orientation, diameter (if apropo), etc.
For band constraints, we need to know the part type, its diameter (or radius),
and its orientation.
>
> Don
I don't think the above looks like stuff that goes into an LDraw file format,
unless we introduce a whole bunch of meta commands. When it is this far off, is
it worth forcing it into the LDraw file format? I suppose the advantage is that
people can define their hose type directly in an LDraw file and have it ported
around with it. Hmmm...
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Don Heyse wrote:
> > Hey that reminds me, the new colored fonts in ldlist 4 look bad on
> > my system. Here's a picture:
> >
> > http://ldglite.sf.net/ldlist4.png
>
> Please try the new version at http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/ldlist.htm
> Seems to work better for me, at least.
It's the same file. Are you having another bad day with case sensitive
filesystems?
Don
|
|
| |
"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hw8349.ECC@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> Michael is also working LSynth support for MLCad.
this is good news, indeed! just out of curiosity, on which basis will they ultimatelly interact? have you sorted out this dll-exe
issue?
> Kevin
w.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
[SNIP]
> I am not familiar to the exact meaning of open source, but I guess it can be a
> little like when you submit the dat code for a part to the PT. Suddenly you find
> that it has been changed or even renamed. In almost all cases to the better, but
> sometimes in a way you disagree to. (like the re-oriented studs in
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x716.dat )
>
> I know, I know. I once stated that all my LDraw related work is public domain
> and anyone can do whatever they wish with it without my explicit permission. But
> I am in the process of re-thinking that policy...
> /Tore
even if you re-think that policy it'll happen anyway. almost a year ago some guidelines have been posted
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=4756 about re-submitting fixes of new parts (new parts not updated ones) but unless the PT
doesn't restrict the re-submission rights to the author only now and then you'll find your parts suddenly fixed by someone other.
sad to say, but that's the way it goes.
w.
|
|
| |
> I would publicly like to thank Leonardo Zide (who wrote Leocad) and
> Don Heyse (who wrote ldglite) for making their programs open source.
> And to all the other lego programmers whose programs are open source that
> I haven't had a play with yet :)
And I would like to publicly like to thank Don Heyse for LDGLite and Travis
Cobbs for LDView. Special thanks go to Don Heyse since his application is
basically the father of all Mac OS LDraw editors (except one that isn't being
worked on and has few features).
I have asked MANY developers with closed source to port their tools, share their
source with those who would port, or make it open source. The only one who has
worked with me is Lars Hassing with L3P, and for that I also publicly thank him.
Incidentally, I never saw a line of Lars' private code because he got a friend
of his to work with him on it.
I could care less about Open Source, but I fully support it just simplly because
I never use Windows (really) and I would like all of those nifty Windows
utilities on my Mac. In fact, alot of my friends and family don't use Windows,
but Mac OS and Linux (some Amiga even).
With the exception of Lars, no one with closed source has been willing to port
their software. If their software was open source, there is at least a higher
chance than 0% that it will get ported.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
>
> "Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hw8349.ECC@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > Michael is also working LSynth support for MLCad.
Michael, did I mispeak on this one? I know you were considering it.
>
> this is good news, indeed! just out of curiosity, on which basis will they ultimatelly interact? have you sorted out this dll-exe
> issue?
MLCad will have to use lsynthcp program. There are no plans to make a dll.
>
> > Kevin
>
> w.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> > > http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/ldlist.htm
> >
> > It's the same file. Are you having another bad day with case
> > sensitive filesystems?
>
> This is very strange. If I download from the above link, I get the new
> version (4.1 from Apr. 16), but it still doesn't follow the 'Large fonts'
> setting?!?
>
> I'll have to dig deeper into this...
Hmmm, maybe Mozilla fooled me by reusing a download from the cache.
I used wget on a different machine and got the one from the 16th. I'll
have to get back to you when I get a chance to test it on the large font
system though.
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> >
> > "Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hw8349.ECC@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > Michael is also working LSynth support for MLCad.
>
> Michael, did I mispeak on this one? I know you were considering it.
>
> >
> > this is good news, indeed! just out of curiosity, on which basis will they ultimatelly interact? have you sorted out this dll-exe
> > issue?
>
> MLCad will have to use lsynthcp program. There are no plans to make a dll.
my memory is not clear on this 'cos I was only involved at the very beginning
back in september/october, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I
know the dll/exe issue was the key point in the whole story. hmm ... I might
missed out something when the conversation got too deep-tech. therefore I guess
it was ultimatelly solved. I always thought that both progs should go together
and I'm glad they will be married :-)
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I don't think the above looks like stuff that goes into an LDraw file format,
> unless we introduce a whole bunch of meta commands. When it is this far off, is
> it worth forcing it into the LDraw file format? I suppose the advantage is that
> people can define their hose type directly in an LDraw file and have it ported
> around with it. Hmmm...
Actually, I'd very much like to figure what definition information can be put in part
files, and how model files could then specify the specific way the part is deformed.
Steve
|
|
| |
Ok, I tested it on my Large Font system and ldlist 4.1 looks good!
Thanks,
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> > I don't think the above looks like stuff that goes into an LDraw file format,
> > unless we introduce a whole bunch of meta commands. When it is this far off, is
> > it worth forcing it into the LDraw file format? I suppose the advantage is that
> > people can define their hose type directly in an LDraw file and have it ported
> > around with it. Hmmm...
>
> Actually, I'd very much like to figure what definition information can be put in part
> files, and how model files could then specify the specific way the part is deformed.
>
> Steve
OK Steve, I'll work up a proposal.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> > I don't think the above looks like stuff that goes into an LDraw file format,
> > unless we introduce a whole bunch of meta commands. When it is this far off, is
> > it worth forcing it into the LDraw file format? I suppose the advantage is that
> > people can define their hose type directly in an LDraw file and have it ported
> > around with it. Hmmm...
>
> Actually, I'd very much like to figure what definition information can be put in part
> files, and how model files could then specify the specific way the part is deformed.
Hi Steve,
I'm still trying to understand this terse response.
Right now, LSynth uses meta commands and part usages to define constraints for
the synthesis process. LSynth performs in-line synthesis. That is to say, it
does not spit out the synthesized part into a seperate file, but puts the
synthesis results in the file where the synthesis specification exists.
The synthesis specification provides the type of thing being synthesized
(pneumatic hose, ribbed hose, fiber optic cable, electric cable, rubber band,
chain, plastic tread, rubber tread) and the color. For hose like entities
(think splines), LSynth expects constraint parts that describe the position and
orientation of the host at discrete points, and LSynth splines between the
constraints. It then spits out a sequence of hose cross sections to simulate a
piece of hose. For rubber bands, LSynth expects pulleys and bushes (all in the
same plane please), and synthesises parts for the arc around the constraint and
the tangent between two constraints. For chain and plastic tread, gears are
used. For rubber tread, the proper wheels are used.
I'm not sure how this fits with what you are envisioning. Could you be a
little less terse?
>
> Steve
Thanks,
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I'm not sure how this fits with what you are envisioning. Could you be a
> little less terse?
Yes.
What I'm envisioning is two meta-commands (or sets of meta-commands) that would be
used to model flexible parts.
One meta-command would go in part files, and would define how a specific flexible
part behaves -- is it fixed length/variable length? Does it resist bending or not?
What line is the basis for bezier curves? Which sections are flexible, and which
aren't? Etc., etc.
The second meta-command would be used in model files, and would be specify how each
flexible part is actually positioned.
The thing is, part flexibility is outside of my expertise - I don't know what
parameters are needed, and where they are needed. Do we need metastatements in
pulleys, to say that they can act as pulleys (along with their diameters)?
Maybe we need to start by cataloging the current state of the art - what are all the
flexible pieces, what are their behaviors, and what do modelers need to be able to do
with them?
It would be really awesome if, the next time LEGO dreams up a new type of flexible
element, we could already have the language to describe the behavior of the new parts
in LDraw.
Steve
|
|
|
