To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 15818
15817  |  15819
Subject: 
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.space
Date: 
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:38:52 GMT
Viewed: 
1168 times
  
In lugnet.space, Damien Guichard writes:
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:

i.e. If an expert builder were to formally train novices, a language like >>this would be crucial.
Or, it could allow all kinds of ways to quantify our models: perhaps the
ratio of ornamental to constructive constructors would be the greeblie
factor, the number of constructive constructors would be the complexity...

I strongly disagree with the usage as a model metrics: the concept is for
creation time only. Do not expect constructors to be deconstructive tools.
Their name just forbid that. They are for design, not analysis. There is no
right or wrong way to build lego. I reject any evaluation tool and consider
the idea as discriminative. The right way to prefect your models is not to
use metrics but to better think your building problems.

Sorry - I didn't mean to offend your sensibilities.  Let me try to explain:

Like others, I see your calculus as something very similar to music theory.
Properties of a piece of music, such as it's tempo or key, do not measure
the value of a piece of music - they merely describe it.  That's how I
interpreted your ideas: as a standardised way to describe (NOT evaluate) models.

If the intent of the calculus is to only assist in design, it may not be
widely accepted.  I think most Lego builders are akin to most popular or
casual musicians - they have no interest in learning any formal theory
because they are happily getting by without it now.  Where I think the
theory becomes most useful is in providing a background or language that can
be used for learning.  It could allow help less able builders (like me)
learn techniques from others without having to use CAD or pictures, much
like the way a piece of music can be described on paper rather than aurally.

Jeff J



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
 
Jeff, Sorry to make this my rant space almost but I once again have to set something straight about music theory: Tempo, notes, key signatures...that is not really music theory...it is only part of it. Those qualifications are analogous to the color (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jul-02, to lugnet.space)
  Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
 
(...) Hi Jeff, I understand that some readers like both lego and music and may be want to "listen" their models, I mean have some non visual perception of them. I have no doubts their extra perceptive talents help them when building. I have no sound (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jul-02, to lugnet.space)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
 
(...) Hi Jeff, I also think the LEGO group should include "building guidelines" in his products. Or at least more idea books. Childs can not infer a building practice by themselves. They are quickly discouraged by trials and failures. I am very (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.space)

41 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR