Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:04:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
36619 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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 lot easier for me to read and get an overview of - is much more annoying
IMO.
> 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.
I can only partly agree with you here. Yes, it was part of the official reason,
but as I understood it, a relatively small part. A more relevant reason was that
POV is just one alternative format of many to export to, and that there were
Blender, AutoCAD etc etc, should we then allow inline code for all alternatives?
If so, the official DAT files would be very large. And noone knows when a more
popular renderer takes over and outdates POV-Ray.
But you are absolutely right about important format changes. The change that has
affected my works far most is the syntax changes from L3P v1.3 to v1.4Beta.
Because I don't want to be without the benefits of LDConfig support, I had to
edit all of my patterned POV dats to comply with v1.4B.
> 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,"
Nah, that sound a little like a conspiracy theory in my ears.
> 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."
But this one I have to strongly agree with! There are a handful of issues
besides inline POV-coding where I have had another point of view than the
"establisment". Of course, my English is not perfect, and when I unfortunately
become frustrated and upset, communication has been even more distorted. But
anywho: I have felt so many times that my input is neglected or dismissed before
they are even carefully read. The starting point of the discussions have always
been that I am wrong, I am using the wrong approach, a vintage PC, wrong
software, and I have to be guided into the correct path. Or at least so I have
felt. Of course, I have been wrong at times! But many times I have had to
explain over and over again why I as an end-user sometimes prefer or many times
just have to do things my way, and why the direction of LCad's current
development threatens to preclude the very continuation of my work.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I'm guilty of that blank-space-deletion in my own parts, I confess. I do most of my authoring in Excel, and sometimes it becomes helpful to sort by linetype. This has the effect of stripping out the blank lines or at least moving them around (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
