Subject:
|
Re: LEGO design patterns... you know, there's a book in that, I'm sure of it!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:30:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
997 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > I was gonna mention Fred Martin, but then you did...
> > >
> > > If someone was to want to do such a thing (and it would be very nifty if someone
> > > did!) his stuff would provide one starting point. Another starting point would
> > > be some of the SNOT presentations given at BrickFest and BricksWest...
> >
> > Also, Fred Martin's stuff is static.... I was thinking of something
> > dynamic, where new design patterns could be added all the time, as long
> > as people were submitting them.
>
> Nod. Those were mentioned by me as sources or seeds for such a dynamic
> repository rather than as an end state.
A link to an HTML version of Fred's original article:
http://www.apotome.com/builder1/artoflego1.htm
For those who may not be familiar with it.
> > One of the important things about documenting LEGO design patterns would
> > be knowing not only how to build it (or how to build one or two
> > particular implementations of it, since many design patterns can be
> > built a multitude of ways), but also a good description of how or why it
> > works the way it does, as well as showing an example or two of
> > circumstances under which that design pattern could be exploited.
>
> WHY is key in my book. Else it's just being clever for cleverness's sake. As in
> the software Design Patterns you reference, which include applicability notes.
I'm wondering about the first part of your statement Larry. Unless I'm
misunderstanding... isn't the 'why' so that you can share knowledge with those
who don't have it? I can teach you to build a differential, but if you don't
know why you're building it, or why it works, or why it's the right thing to use
at the right time.... isn't teaching you just 'how' to build it a waste of our
time? I guess I see the 'why' as the act of putting the mechanisms into
context.
You build a bicycle with gears and chain, rather than pulleys and drive belts.
And there's a reason 'why' and in my mind knowing the why is at least 1/2 the
battle when it comes to solving problems that arise later. Thus, when building
a car, you know 'why' the transmission should have gears, instead of pulleys.
:)
Again, unless I'm misunderstanding, which given my track record is the more
likely scenario. ;)
> When Suz gave her Constructopedia talk at a previous BrickFest, this was what I
> thought she was getting at, before hearing her talk... (she's actually thinking
> of something related but also neat, which I would leave to her to discuss)
O.K. I'll bite. Is this the same Constructopedia project that Fred mentions on
this page:
http://fredm.www.media.mit.edu/people/fredm/papers/artoflego/cliche.html
I have been waiting for something like this for years. I think the idea, of an
ideas repository is something that this community could pull off with success.
Using the CAD software available, just about anyone can now share their building
techniques, ideas and mechanisms with everyone else. Housing them on a website
seems a likely destination.
My only concern would be that the website translate well into a CD-ROM format,
so that it could be made available offline. In that regard, I would see the
need for a software developer with strong GUI skills to assist in planning the
layout of the site.
Additionally, I've never seen why it had to be strictly related to Technic type
building. Why not sculpture techniques, architectural elements, or basic
structural engineering? Fred's article touches on mechanical engineering, but
doesn't really take it beyond that. There are so many facets of design
principles (or cliches) that could be shared... it seems a pity this hasn't
happened yet.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
