Subject:
|
Re: LEGO design patterns... you know, there's a book in that, I'm sure of it!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:36:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Allan Bedford wrote:
> 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. ;)
No, you're spot on. Gears and chain drives are both viable ways of transmitting
power... but the real trick is to know when each one is a good choice, It's not
even enough just to say "chains are good for bikes and gears are good for
cars".... you need to be able to extend that knowledge about bicycles into what
are the specific characteristics that make chains well suited so that you can
generalise and extend. Why are BMW motorcycles shaft drive? Why are Harleys
chain drive? They're both equally closely related to bicycles, or so it would
seem.
And so it is with software patterns. Tis all well and good to know what the
Facade pattern is, but the real trick is realising when it's applicable, and WHY
it's a good choice and why it isn't. (I confess I'd have to go look it up, I
forget why at the moment.. but I can go look it up because I have the Software
Patterns book and I refer to it when I need to)
And so it is with LEGO patterns as well. There are, for example, (using SNOT,
one of my fave topics) many different ways to get studs on the side of a brick
(rotated 90).
When is it better to use the headlight brick? Front or back? Or should you put
it sideways?
When is it better to use a technic brick with a 1 1/2 pin in it? Or with a 2x2
tile with top center technic pin? or the 2x2 plate with bottom center technic
pin?
When is it better to use one of those new fangled 1x4 bricks with hollow studs
molded in? Or the 1x1 brick with studs on 4 sides?
When is it better to use a slant top 1x2 brick hinge? When is it better to use a
5 finger car roof hinge? Or a 2 finger/3 finger hinge? or a new click hinge?
When is it better to plug a brick into a technic brick sideways?
When is it better to use a 1x4-1x2 bracket? a 2x2-2x2 bracket? A space chair
bracket? and so on....
Unlike those that own the software patterns book, right now answering that
question is an "in" secret... if you know all those techniques, and understand
when to use them, you're in the inner circle... if you don't, you aren't. A book
would make the "inner circle" bigger. And that, to me, seems a good thing.
So, ya, I'm agreeing with you.
> > 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 thought it might be but I no longer do. Really I think it best if Suzanne
talks about it, not me. I'll mangle it, and I'd rather not.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
