| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, James Mastros wrote:
> > Why not put out a 0.28, with the more trivial restrictions,
> > this amongst them, removed? If that's impossible for legal
> > reasons, will somebody step up to the bat, and write a replacement?
>
> Why have a replacement at all? The file format stands by itself. There's no
> reference complier for C code, no reference viewer for the PNG format, and no
> reference CAD program for the DXF format, why should there be one for the LDraw
> system?
Excellent point.
However there are a lot of (in some ways incompatible) dialects of C. There ARE
reference implementations for things like all the Java components (the javac
compiler, the java jvm, the jms messaging, jca, the rmi server, etc etc etc) and
arguably that has helped matters.
One good thing about a reference implementation (which is controlled by the
standards body, which Ldraw 0.27 is NOT since it's not a buildable thing) is
that it can shift arguments about standards a bit.
That said I'm not arguing FOR, just saying "good question". I think I'd rather
try to get by without a reference implementation.
To James M's point I am pretty sure that if JJ were alive today he'd heartily
agree with it. But not certain.
That said I certainly support proposals to the LSC to start deviating from the
standard where it makes good technical sense to do so.
THAT said I am sort of sad that Willy decided to hold this part back, not
because he's within his rights to do so, but because I would rather see one
repository for all parts, but especially this one, even incompatible as it is,
because it's really a nifty part. Many repositories makes it harder for users to
find stuff I think.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
16 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
|
|
|
|
