Subject:
|
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:53:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3733 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Matthew J. Chiles <mattchiles@gorge.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:06:31 GMT, you wrote:
>
> > When I made my first 3005-letters, I made them a compromise between accuracy
> > and
> > visibility. It was more important that the letters were readable in as small
> > scale as possible than that they were true to the originals. Do you find this
> > philosophy shocking? ;) That was in the days when LDraw was meant to produce
> > readable instructions. Today, I don't know what's become of LDraw. A playground
> > for perfectionists, where nothing or very little passes, maybe?
>
> "A playground for perfectionists"
>
> Excellent summary of what I am trying to say. Most of us are not
> perfectionists even if we would like to be, and we don't have time to
> be perfectionists. But we do want useable parts.
>
> There is a step below perfection that is "good enough". If L-Draw
> continues to strive for perfection at the expense of all else, it will
> be perfect at doing what it does, but what it does will be very little
> - too little to be useful.
You're right MAtt,
"Only the best is good enough" but "la surqualité est de la non-qualité"
(overquality is non-quality) and "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (better is
enemy of good).
Didier
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
