Subject:
|
Will LMPL be Simulation-approach or Usage-approach ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.lcd
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:12:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2271 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Láng Attila D.
Hi Kiss Attila Csongor,
Do not forget to download Spiderbot.dat (in lugnet.cad.models)
The debate becomes VERY interesting.
We embody two different well-known approaches.
First : the Simulation approach.
Things are nothing but their properties.
Then complexity emerges from properties composition.
This is the suitable approach for a Ray-tracer.
And the ultimate video game would be a game that is ray-traced in real time.
(here I refer "" which sounds stupid to me: do you mean fun would be greater
if lego bricks were mold at atomic precision? I don't think so.)
Second : the Usage approach.
Things are only what you do/can-do with them.
Then complexity emerges from interaction of sensible usages.
This is the suitable approach for a GUI.
And the ultimate video game would be the game that dispenses most fun
according to you.
Let me tell you one thing: the Nature/Usage opposition is a recurring debate in
* physics (are atoms "real" or just solution to equilibrate chemical reactions)
* math (are numbers and functions "natural" or created by human need for
computing)
* software (do software components model reality or do they just mimic how
it works)
In science the debate is closed. Atoms and functions are known to be just
mind constructs that "work". Because to "work" is precisely the critter of
a scientific experience. In software field, very good OO languages that are
best for simulation (Simula, Eiffel) have disappeared. They all have been
replaced by user approach like Smalltalk, and use-cases approach like UML .
What succeeds is practice-driven. I do not say LCD+LMPL will fail. Because I
know nothing about them. I still wait publishing.
However, I am sure about one thing: lego bricks are what you do with them.
So I prefer to adhere the use-case approach.
Because the existence precedes the essence.
The LEGO group keep repeating the fun in lego comes from freedom and
imagination.
No cool play-value will emerge from limits and constraints inherent in bricks.
The properties of a model are not summation of individual part properties,
but imagination projected to its whole shape.
Consider the Spiderbot model.
I guess the Spiderbot leg part "Plate 1 x 4 Offset" is not in LCD as a
rotating connector.
In the real world the legs hardly articulate without model disassembly.
But I must imagine they do. If they don't how my model would walk?
So I decide they do. And I declare "" as a rotating connector. The reality
is not what it is, it is just what I imagine (I realize while typing: that
is lego slogan!!!). Because I play lego. Because lego is a toy.
The very bad news for me is : if I give up, who will defend the practical
approach?
And, believe me, I am really tempted by abandon. Because this is too much work.
I have to choose between ALM and a new, more robust, Termolo compiler.
Currently I only have a very crude Termolo interpreter, written by myself.
And I really need a compiler for advanced, computer intensive usage.
Damien
http://brickcaster.multimania.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
