|
|
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Well, I singled out the header-code not as the problem in itself but as symptomatic of a shift that's taken place over a period of years. I don't know how else to say it without sounding petty, and I'm absolutely not singling out any one (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) It is an issue IMO. Probably a small one compared to other ones, but it's the sum of real or subjective obstacles that makes me worried about recruiting new LDraw authors. What I believe is the biggest issue is nobody's fault: All the easy, (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Possibly so but I'm of the opinion that those that make and share the parts are entitled to some narcissism. And I speak having done minimal part authoring in quite some time (due to laziness) so it's not self-interest at work. --snip-- Your (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Developing LDBoxer Again
|
| After seven years of thinking and hesitating, I have decided to improve my utility progam LDBoxer. There are lots of room for improvements, but to begin with, I will fix a couple of bugs I have discovered. Then I will focus on making two new (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) I more meant that it de-motivates me from remaking parts if I don't get the proper credit for them! I'm a human being - I want credit for what I do. But maybe "de-motivating" is the bad word for it. Maybe "annoying" is better there. But I just (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
|
