NH
nop head
Sat, Nov 27, 2021 5:52 PM
When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay for about 3
hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than the time it would take
to implement what is in Netfabb. The only way features like that get
implemented is if a programmer capable of doing it wants the feature enough
to implement. I expect the people wanting it are not programmers because a
programmer wouldn't need it.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 at 17:24, edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
The alternative strategy of design
something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding a
model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve a
problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it existed
it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with great
moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather than
just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
Edmund
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay for about 3
hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than the time it would take
to implement what is in Netfabb. The only way features like that get
implemented is if a programmer capable of doing it wants the feature enough
to implement. I expect the people wanting it are not programmers because a
programmer wouldn't need it.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 at 17:24, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:04 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> The alternative strategy of design
>> something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
>> meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
>> that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
>>
>>
> I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding a
> model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve a
> problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
> process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
> starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
> people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
> impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
> from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
> maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
>
> Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it existed
> it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with great
> moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather than
> just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
> Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
>
> Edmund
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
>
TP
Torsten Paul
Sat, Nov 27, 2021 6:06 PM
On 27.11.21 18:52, nop head wrote:
When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay
for about 3 hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than
the time it would take to implement what is in Netfabb.
Which is why it's called a BOUNTY not a payment.
It does not change the fact that pretty much any change (and
also the help given by people in various places) is done in
spare time for free. Still a bounty could give some extra
incentive for people considering spending their spare time
or not.
ciao,
Torsten.
On 27.11.21 18:52, nop head wrote:
> When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay
> for about 3 hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than
> the time it would take to implement what is in Netfabb.
Which is why it's called a BOUNTY not a payment.
It does not change the fact that pretty much any change (and
also the help given by people in various places) is done in
spare time for free. Still a bounty could give some extra
incentive for people considering spending their spare time
or not.
ciao,
Torsten.
ER
edmund ronald
Sat, Nov 27, 2021 6:08 PM
I have no idea what a programmer would need, I myself was a grad student at
the Cambridge Computer Lab over in the UK, but I do understand that the
ability to write simple code doesn't make me a programmer. However
everybody in the discussion on github seems very technical
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/3638
Edmund
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:54 PM nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:
When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay for about
3 hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than the time it would
take to implement what is in Netfabb. The only way features like that get
implemented is if a programmer capable of doing it wants the feature enough
to implement. I expect the people wanting it are not programmers because a
programmer wouldn't need it.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 at 17:24, edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
wrote:
The alternative strategy of design
something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding
a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve
a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it
existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with
great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather
than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
Edmund
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
I have no idea what a programmer would need, I myself was a grad student at
the Cambridge Computer Lab over in the UK, but I do understand that the
ability to write simple code doesn't make me a programmer. However
everybody in the discussion on github seems very technical
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/3638
Edmund
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:54 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I was a professional programmer that bounty would only pay for about
> 3 hours of my time, many orders of magnitude less than the time it would
> take to implement what is in Netfabb. The only way features like that get
> implemented is if a programmer capable of doing it wants the feature enough
> to implement. I expect the people wanting it are not programmers because a
> programmer wouldn't need it.
>
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 at 17:24, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:04 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The alternative strategy of design
>>> something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
>>> meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
>>> that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
>>>
>>>
>> I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding
>> a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve
>> a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
>> process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
>> starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
>> people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
>> impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
>> from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
>> maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
>>
>> Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it
>> existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with
>> great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather
>> than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
>> Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
>>
>> Edmund
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
>
AM
Adrian Mariano
Sat, Nov 27, 2021 6:42 PM
edmund, you seem to be treating this issue like there is some sort of
opposition to the feature you want. As far as I know, this is not the
case. There simply is nobody capable of implementing that feature who
is also interested in implementing it. The people on the mailing list
are not the people writing OpenSCAD and we are not all planning to add
new features to OpenSCAD next month. You could convince everybody on
the mailing list that this feature is the ultimate need for OpenSCAD
and nothing would change. I suggest that the original topic of how
to program in the OpenSCAD we have is a more useful topic for the
mailing list. And if you want ideas about how to solve your
problems...whatever they actually are...with the existing OpenSCAD,
then that's also a good topic. I'm more interested in know how we can
get things accomplished, not how we cannot.
(Note: I liked the forum.)
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:04 PM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
The alternative strategy of design
something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
Edmund
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
edmund, you seem to be treating this issue like there is some sort of
opposition to the feature you want. As far as I know, this is not the
case. There simply is nobody capable of implementing that feature who
is also interested in implementing it. The people on the mailing list
are not the people writing OpenSCAD and we are not all planning to add
new features to OpenSCAD next month. You could convince everybody on
the mailing list that this feature is the ultimate need for OpenSCAD
and nothing would change. I suggest that the original topic of how
to program in the OpenSCAD we have is a more useful topic for the
mailing list. And if you want ideas about how to solve your
problems...whatever they actually are...with the existing OpenSCAD,
then that's also a good topic. I'm more interested in know how we can
get things accomplished, not how we cannot.
(Note: I liked the forum.)
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:04 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> The alternative strategy of design
>> something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
>> meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
>> that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
>>
>
> I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
>
> Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
>
> Edmund
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
PC
Patrick Callahan
Sun, Nov 28, 2021 2:19 AM
Well, this has been fun. Let's call it a day unless any participant thinks
there's more to say about
the organization, presentation, and use of any of these to define a feature
of an object independently of the operations needed to create its geometry:
- measurements
- calculations using measurements
- calculation results .
I'm off to write some OpenSCAD version 2021.01 code to describe some actual
objects.
-Pat
P.S. This discussion helped me a lot. Thanks to all.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 1:42 PM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
edmund, you seem to be treating this issue like there is some sort of
opposition to the feature you want. As far as I know, this is not the
case. There simply is nobody capable of implementing that feature who
is also interested in implementing it. The people on the mailing list
are not the people writing OpenSCAD and we are not all planning to add
new features to OpenSCAD next month. You could convince everybody on
the mailing list that this feature is the ultimate need for OpenSCAD
and nothing would change. I suggest that the original topic of how
to program in the OpenSCAD we have is a more useful topic for the
mailing list. And if you want ideas about how to solve your
problems...whatever they actually are...with the existing OpenSCAD,
then that's also a good topic. I'm more interested in know how we can
get things accomplished, not how we cannot.
(Note: I liked the forum.)
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
wrote:
The alternative strategy of design
something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding
a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve
a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it
existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with
great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather
than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
Well, this has been fun. Let's call it a day unless any participant thinks
there's more to say about
the organization, presentation, and use of any of these to define a feature
of an object independently of the operations needed to create its geometry:
- measurements
- calculations using measurements
- calculation results .
I'm off to write some OpenSCAD version 2021.01 code to describe some actual
objects.
-Pat
P.S. This discussion helped me a lot. Thanks to all.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 1:42 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
> edmund, you seem to be treating this issue like there is some sort of
> opposition to the feature you want. As far as I know, this is not the
> case. There simply is nobody capable of implementing that feature who
> is also interested in implementing it. The people on the mailing list
> are not the people writing OpenSCAD and we are not all planning to add
> new features to OpenSCAD next month. You could convince everybody on
> the mailing list that this feature is the ultimate need for OpenSCAD
> and nothing would change. I suggest that the original topic of how
> to program in the OpenSCAD we have is a more useful topic for the
> mailing list. And if you want ideas about how to solve your
> problems...whatever they actually are...with the existing OpenSCAD,
> then that's also a good topic. I'm more interested in know how we can
> get things accomplished, not how we cannot.
>
> (Note: I liked the forum.)
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 6:04 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> The alternative strategy of design
> >> something, look at it, and push points around on the model until it
> >> meets some condition is not the strength of OpenSCAD, and personally
> >> that kind of ad hoc design is something I don't like.
> >>
> >
> > I am the first to agree that pushing points around the space surrounding
> a model and looking at the values is not necessarily the best way to solve
> a problem, but it is often the the fastest. As it just serves to inform the
> process of coding the model, I don't see why it is bad? If people are
> starting to post bounties on this issue, that probably means a lot of
> people feel strongly about it, and to the extent that a solution just
> impinges on the visualisation environment, why not just provide it, benefit
> from the fact that the user community is growing -and cash in the bounty
> maybe - rather than give people theological lectures on programming style?
> >
> > Unfortunately, this seems similar to the user forum story. When it
> existed it was good, and now people tell those of us who like forums, with
> great moral superiority that mailing lists are superior to forums, rather
> than just figure out a way to restore functionality by making a gateway to
> Google groups which would probably see us through another 10 years.
> >
> > Edmund
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenSCAD mailing list
> > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
>
