Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:48:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1250 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> 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
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 talent, actually I listen no music at all.
My lego calculus comes from linguistic capabilities.
I see my calculus as similar to formal grammars from language theory. Formal
grammars are always generative. Grammars rules are also called productions
because they produce the sentences.
I am confortable with my calculus as long as I speak of a generative or
assistant design tool.
Using your own sensibility and your own interpretation, you can declare it a
descriptive notation. You can decompose rather than compose. You can
deconstruct rather than construct. You can use it the descending way rather
than the ascending way.
I understand most people have no interest in formal theory and formal
languages. The argument that my operators (a grammar notion) are of a
linguistic nature will certainly not convince you. Because your needs are of
a different nature. The argument that the notion will not be popular if for
design only will not convince me either.
Here are my non-linguistic arguments:
1. As I see it, lego building activity is either creation or reproduction.
There is buiding instructions for reproduction. There is constructive
operators for creation. What is the need for description?
2. As I see it, helping children and beginners to start their first models
is teaching them building patterns. These building patterns are necessarily
constructive. When describing a model using patterns you just highlight the
generative power of the patterns. The pattern composition necessarily
precedes the pattern decomposition. Decomposing a model is just
demonstrating how it has been composed.
3. As I see them, my patterns are not the unique or universal constructive
method. Obviously you can use them to build many things. But not anything.
That makes them very limited in the descending way.
As the author of the method I must tell you the truth: I expect very little
advances in design comprehension. But no benefit at all in the description
usage, apart describing how to build (I mean to assemble the patterns).
Thanks for criticism,
Damien
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
