Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 2010 13:08:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
33154 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Timothy Gould wrote:
> By that argument you dismiss the opposite perspective.
If we were both sitting on a bench somewhere and arguing from equal positions of
power, then that statement would make sense. However, you are speaking from the
position of The Mighty LSC, an entity apparently able to make decisions by fiat.
Therefore, you (collectively) reserve the power to do things "because we say
so," rendering your position impenetrable to any argument.
My dismissal of your argument doesn't prevent the mighty committee from steering
LDraw in whatever arbitrary direction it pleases, but your dismissal of mine
shuts down my argument with what amounts to "cuz I say so." Therefore my
dismissal of your argument is not equivalent to your dismissal of others'
arguments, and you can't legitimately tar me with that same brush.
> You call 'facile' on any argument, no matter how strong, that disagrees with
> your own position.
I call "facile" on a position has the unaccountable power to dismiss opposition
by fiat and does so.
> I have a very clear argument for my position: POVray is not LDraw and to mix the
> two in one file is confusing, especially for the novice tinkerer. No that
> position isn't likely to change until I see a novel and good argument against
> it. I'm yet to see one.
You've yet to acknowledge one, you mean.
You're the one who insisted that two dozen lines of esoteric header code is "not
a big deal" for the novice tinkerer, even though it's intimidating and
off-putting even to veteran parts authors. Therefore you have no trouble making
LDraw code "confusing" as long as it serves your purpose.
POV-Ray code language is, for a great many functions, far simpler than
equivalent LDraw code and has always been so. It's a separate language, yes,
but it's hardly indecipherable, and anyone who can figure out how to generate
linetype-5 statements can certainly understand how to code in POV-Ray.
You're picking and choosing which "confusion" is acceptable.
> Your main argument seems to stem from some desire to have everything in one
> place.
Actually, that's not my argument. My argument has been that there's no reason
why existing--and 100% unobtrusive--support for inlined POV-Ray code should be
discontinued. Elsewhere in the thread it has been suggested that such support
is not likely to vanish, even if it's subject to error messaging, and IMO this
is an acceptable workaround.
Your position seems to be that POV-Ray code is okay as long as it's not inlined
and is made inconvenient for the end-user.
> There's an easier solution to that than blending two file formats: you
> can create a POV repository for the POVray parts.
So the simpler solution is for the user to create an entirely new library of
parts from scratch rather than allowing LDraw applications to continue to
support inlined POV-Ray code?
Not sure I see how that's simpler.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) Wow. You're totally confusing me with someone else. I've never been in the LSC, haven't been in the SteerCo for a couple of years, haven't had much at all to do with the LDraw header (other than a teensy bit to do with the licensing which, (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| --snip-- (...) --snip-- By that argument you dismiss the opposite perspective. You call 'facile' on any argument, no matter how strong, that disagrees with your own position. I have a very clear argument for my position: POVray is not LDraw and to (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
