Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:26:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Jennifer Clark writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> > isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
> > columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> > demonstrate mechanical principles.
>
> I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically
> about civil engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that
> you can "legally" bend meccano parts in ways not really possible with
> Lego could be relevant, but one of the reasons I always preferred
> Technic over Meccano (aside from the fact I
> never had Meccano) was that Technic seemed to offer far more
> possibilities when
> it came to making mechanisms and vehicles.
>
> Why this should be I have no idea, and I certainly haven't explored Meccano to
> any great extent, but things usually looked a bit clunky in it and for some
> reason it seemed less flexible (in terms of what you could do) than Lego. I
> could make all sorts of grotesque contraptions with huge gear trains and
> whatnots far easier with Lego, and perhaps even more importantly do it more
> quickly; things click and pop together rather than needing to be bolted on.
Because you know all the idioms. To draw an analogy, I can code in C++ or
Java a lot faster than I can in Lisp, because I know more idioms and
patterns. That doesn't (in and of itself) make C++ *better* than Lisp, just
different. You need a different metric to decide whether C++ is better or
worse. Partisan facile-ness with it doesn't count.
But yes, I do think LEGO is more expressive than Meccano. There are more
parts, and it can be used across a much wider range of problems. I'm biased,
I haven't set out to *prove* it but it's what I believe to be true.
Having said that, it still is more possible for the novice builder (your
average 6 year old or 8 year old, or even 12 year old that hasn't used LEGO
much, and thus doesn't know the idioms) to make weak structures in LEGO than
it is in Meccano or Knex or even Znap.
Hope that's clear. I'm NOT trying to pick a fight (I consider all three
other systems I mentioned far inferior) just trying to say that I understand
where the perception referenced comes from.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Yup, that certainly is a large part of it, and I don't think there is any point in my life where my skill (or lack thereof) at the two systems was equal therefore allowing a valid comparison. I think there is something else though, a mindset, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Hi Larry. Correct me if I misunderstand but you appear to be saying that the Lego idioms are quicker to learn than for the other construction toys. We also appear to agree that the writers perception is wrong. Do you support me attempting to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Well, I had both Meccano and Lego as a kid, and I can tell you that the Meccano didn't get a look in, past building a few things from the instructions. I really tried, but Meccano was just so slow to construct anything, and you couldn't really (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically about civil engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that you can "legally" bend meccano parts in ways not really possible with Lego could be relevant, but one of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
