[OpenSCAD] multmatrix expands the input matrix to 4x4?

Hugo Jackson hugo at apres.net
Wed Jul 3 00:06:48 EDT 2019



> On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:19 PM, adrianv <avm4 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> 

…

> I don't have a feeling like OpenSCAD is really moving anywhere, like I
> should have an expectation that it will improve.  The fact that 4 years
> passed between releases suggests a pretty conservative approach, without
> much change.   It seems like  suggestions of changes are met with the
> response that those who could execute such changes lack the time or
> inclination to do so (and that it's unreasonable to request changes because
> it's a volunteer effort.)  So it's really not apparent how someone (who is
> not prepared to write code for OpenSCAD itself) could help improve matters
> in the core language.  

I neither have the time nor intellect to write code for OpenSCAD, but I sure appreciate the effort
that has gone into it. 

I have a friend who does a lot of volunteer shareware software development. His programs get downloaded about 20K 
a month, but in the 12 years he’s been doing it, he’s gotten about $200 in total whereas on the other hand the request 
for new features or complaints about how his programs don’t do one thing or another are endless. I know for a fact he’s pretty 
pleased when he gets that very infrequent email of thanks and/or praise.
So for part I try to let the developers know how much I appreciate the time and effort they put into this project.

I know OpenSCAD isn’t perfect, and I’m pretty sure the developers are even more aware of its imperfections than I am, but
for a variety of reasons OpenSCAD is my development environment of choice and I’d hate to see it wither and die.

Secondly… there’s cash. :) To show my support I make a (currently very modest) monthly donation to OpenSCAD which
I hope to increase as my own resources permit. I’ve spent far more on a 3D printer than I’ve spent using the program that
I consider indispensable to creating object to print on it… I don’t think that’s quite right.

Thirdly, there’s bounties and I know if I’m really serious about an extension or feature, I could offer a reward. I note that some
feature requests with a bounty will sometimes even see others joining in to up the ante and make it even more
worthwhile for someone with the knowledge and expertise to actually do the work. Granted most of the bounties offered 
seem to be in the < $50 range… but I wonder how excited one of the developers might be If one were to offer something like
$200, $500 or $1000 for something to be implemented.
Something at that level might be out of my range, but I’ve been toying with the idea of offering a bounty that would serve
as a serious thank you for the time and effort it would take for a feature I’d very much like to see.

> 
> Here's another observation: if behavior is not documented then perhaps it
> decreases the likelihood of code relying on that behavior, but also it's
> difficult for people to observe that the behavior is bad, since it's secret.  
> It seems unlikely to get "fixed".   Perhaps behavior deemed bad should be
> documented as "quirks" or something like that, with the indication that
> quirk behavior may change in the future, and code should avoid relying on
> it.   Or does someone already have a list of these sorts of concerns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss at lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org




More information about the Discuss mailing list