Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:13:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1424 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Joshua Delahunty writes:
> > Lar said:
> > > We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in
> > > most every respect, except when he's wrong. :-)
> >
> > ad hominem, Lar. Tsk, tsk.
> >
> > It's a subtle version, though. Props for that.
>
> "We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in
> > > most every respect, although he happens to be wrong about this. :-)" :-)
>
> Better? :-)
"...fellow in most every respect, although _my opinion differs very strongly
with his_" would be my preference. SURELY you don't see this as
objective subject matter?
> > > > And parts authors are encouraged to make extensive use of KEYWORDS
> > > > entries, to help people when they are searching for parts.
> > >
> > > Yes please.
> >
> > Doesn't work in every package.
>
> Fix or discard those that don't. Standards evolve and packages need to
> evolve too.
I'm pointing out the argument from the majority position here. I've yet
to settle fully on a package I like best, though LeoCAD probably leads
the pack (even if it does freeze up for me in background-recalc mode
currently :-P)
> > Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since any decent package
> > will allow user notes or even full renaming anyway. And then each user can
> > have everything to his own specifications.
>
> This is a terrible idea. Get the names right instead and get them adopted.
> Unless you were opposed to the tower of Babel and thought imposing multiple
> languages was a GOOD idea. I don't WANT to call things by my own names that
> no one else understands.
Perhaps not, but I WOULD like to a) load up the set of pseudo-official, James
inspired names, b) load up the set of James Hughes names, c) load up the set
of I've-used-them-for-over-8-years-and-worked-very-hard-to-develop-them
internal Joshua Delahunty names (which, BTW, I may invoke some hubris here
and point out that several people have mistaken in the past for internal
names because they thought them so official), perhaps even d) [Pie in the
Sky] load up officially-released TLG names.
I'm not sure I want every person to feel as if s/he has to redefine the
entire list of over 4-thousand elements just to suit hermself before using
the package. But I'm going to be more willing to use the package with
the most options. When I model virtually, I want to model, not play
"hunt the element" all the time.
> > > See also the brickbay discussion groups where we are wrangling over
> > > nomenclature as well. There is a significant faction that does not want to
> > > use LDraw names because they are too confusing and too slow to get
> > > corrected. I would use them even if they are confusing because consistency
> > > is good. If Brickbay ends up with a different nomenclature (even if it's
> > > better) that's bad.
>
> > There already are competing nomenclatures. Heck, several names that I got
> > used to (standardized on) from James' work have now faded away, so I can't
> > find things I already knew...
>
> > I happen to like Mr. Hughes names a lot too (he tends to tread close to
> > "official" TLG usage when he can, of course.
>
> Trust me, if Brickbay goes with a competing nomenclature from Peeron which
> is different from LDraw this is going to be very bad.
Peeron is different from LDRAW because LDRAW doesn't keep up. All it takes
to inventory a set is for it to be released in a store. LDRAW doesn't
worry about it until that element has been out long enough for someone
to want a .dat file (admittedly, not that long usually), and then (much
more importantly) for that .dat file to be created by someone. By and
large, they depend on Steve and LDRAW as their "lead" on this.
> The Brickbay
> categorization/attributification scheme is profoundly revolutionary. It has
> the prospect of breaking the tyranny of hierarchy.
Sounds exciting. Sounds wonderful. If you're right, then it will be
better than cheese with holes, and it will become a de facto standard
because everyone loves it and uses it. This is how good standards
rise. If they turn "6m steering rod" into
"TECHNIC Axle Towball Sockets, Axle 6L, Bounds 8L",
I don't think I'll be as likely to use it, though.
[Please note, I'm not fully in love with "6m steering rod", but I
know IMMEDIATELY and intuitively what's being discussed. With a
more technical description, I have to stop and "draw" the thing in my
head, and I'd much rather do a search on "steering" than "axle" to
find this element]
-- joshua
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
56 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
|
|
|
|
