Subject:
|
Re[2]: I have read the article about LCD
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.lcd
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:07:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2736 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi all, hello Damien!
DG> This thread is not very frequented now.
DG> May be because the debate has to become much more technical.
Yes, there is not so many traffic here nowadays. We knew this will be
a long project because it's a big project with many steps. There is
many questions to clarify, there is a huge amount of types of
connections/connectors, etc...
I promised we will keep the tips, the collected connections in tables
and update the proposal. We will do it ASAP, but now I have a little
bit technical problem but Jacob try to help me. (Many thanks to
Jacob!)
LAD> What are you meaning by multiple syntax levels, Damien?
DG> I mean if LMPL is not sufficient, we are in danger to either add more and
DG> more syntax extensions or to add a whole additionnal new language. Also LMPL
DG> should be structured enough so that textual programming and GUI
DG> manipulations are equivalent.
I think it's not a danger, it's the normal flow of development. At
first we defined the basic level (or layer) called LCD. This will
solve the connections and nothing more. The next layer is the LMPL
highly based on LCD. And maybe there will be additional layers too.
And all of these will work via GUI interface, so it means there is no
need to textual programming for the end user. (Similarly you not have
to code anything if you want to use LDraw. Only when you want develope
something new. Now you can develope only parts and nothing
more. If we want to define connections and later movements we will
need additional syntaxes and keywords to script them. Finally we can
call it a language. Also, I think the LDraw file format is a language.
Small, but language. :)
LAD> Let me report that LMPL is almost ready. It is going to be published soon.
DG> Good news. May be I will better know what I am talking about, when published.
LAD wrote it, and now I do the formatting and illustrating according
to the new LDraw.org site style. I try to do it ASAP, but it's more
complex and longer than the LCD. :)
> > > You should have only one specification language that encompasses all
> > > present and future needs.
> > Of course we should.
And it must be flexible enough for future extensions. That's why we
think in layers.
DG> I mean a LMPL proposal. I am sorry I will not help to collect connectors and
DG> measure distances and angles. I do not prefer promoting my own project
DG> rather than to contribute. I actually prefer to review parts as I already do
DG> in the Parts Tracker. The reason why I do not is because LMPL should precede
DG> LCD. Because innovative usages are in LMPL. And because LCD notation must
DG> assist LMPL, not the reverse. In my opinion, collection parts info should be
DG> the very last stage. LMPL should be mainly driven by playing practice, not
DG> by parts geometry.
Hm, this is a very interesting question!
In my humble opinion first we need to connect the parts somehow and
after that we can move the connected parts (as in real life) and start
to play with it. If we have no connections than we have nothing to
play with. (Imagine a minifig starting to walk. Without connections
the minifig will lose his/her head and all the other member. :)))
DG> I am currently at stage 1 (nothing is done).
DG> So my credibility is very low.
I trust you, so I encourage you to work out your approach as a
complete proposal!
--
___ Bye: KACS, The BrickaMocka
/___\__
|o o| E-mail: kacs69@freemail.hu
_\_~_/_ kacs@makacs.hu
/|LEGO |\ lcd@makacs.hu
//|_____|\\
C |==|==| C Brick, Brick Hurray! :)
|__|__|
__I__I__I_________________< The Bat! 1.53d >_
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Re[2]: I have read the article about LCD
|
| (...) Hello Láng Attila D. Hello Kiss Attila Csongor, Now you speak about layers. That is precisely what I called "multiple syntax levels". Software layers are known to be very bad for software engineering and design in general. On the contrary, ALM (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I have read the article about LCD
|
| Hello Láng Attila D. and Hello Kiss Attila Csongor, This thread is not very frequented now. May be because the debate has to become much more technical. (...) I mean if LMPL is not sufficient, we are in danger to either add more and more syntax (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
