Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Jul 2010 13:42:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
36721 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Ross Crawford wrote:
> So really the only difference I see between the two is that the former provides
> useful information for authors & reviewers, and the latter provides useful
> information for end-users. And I don't see why one person can't have a different
> view on each, just as you do. So what's the point of the argument?
For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the
previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a
tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers.
The extended period of discussion and hand-wringing that yielded the
over-elaborate header format also resulted in a years-long drought of new parts.
If, after all that time, the only benefit is "useful information for authors &
reviewers," then it's equivalent to telling the end-users to go jump in a lake.
Part of the "official" reason that POV-Ray code is excluded is that changes
might be made to POV-Ray without the consent of the good people of the LSC.
Very true, but the LDraw parts-format has undergone more changes than have the
relevant POV-Ray coding during the same period, so that argument becomes less
convincing.
Further, when the justification for forbidding inlined POV-Ray code ultimately
amounts to "we don't like it because we aren't in absolute control of it," then
users who see great value in the coding are understandably likely to feel
short-changed. "Feel free to use it," we're told, "but not in official parts."
> I'm sure the debate would be much more useful if we stuck to the merits of each,
> rather than pointing fingers at each other.
That's true only if the parties in the debate have equal power to affect the
outcome. When one party in the debate (or its surrogates) can rule by fiat and
the other party can't effect any change at all, then it's hardly a discussion
between equals, and finger-pointing is not inappropriate in that case.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I agree to some extent. But now it's there, like it or not. I have very little (if any?) use of it and yes it annoys me a little. The deleting of extra blank lines (used to group lines some way related to eachother) that makes the dat code a (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I'd agree, if that was the only benefit of the "discussion and hand-wringing", however the primary benefit of it was to get a library that could be freely distributed with the blessing of the Jessimans. (...) I don't see that it does. (...) (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
