BOSL2 may have lots of stuff that is unneeded the vast majority of the
time. However, the basics of BOSL2 have become essential to my use of
OpenSCAD. Using up, down, left, right, fwd, and back, xrot, yrot, and zrot,
xcyl, ycyl and zcyl, the anchors RIGHT, LEFT, TOP, BOT, FRONT and BACK,
make your code so much more readable that I think it is a huge mistake to
not use BOSL2. I do nothing without it in OpenSCAD. If I were king it would
be incorporated into the base product.

-Bob

On Mar 11, 2024, at 15:35, John David via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

Thank you, Ray,

I have seen a couple of the videos that "A Glimpse Inside" guy does, and
as I start building my toolholders I will likely go back and watch them
again in the future for ideas.  You are right.  Using BOSL2, or any of this
advanced stuff, is gross overkill.  I had already used OpenSCAD to model a
conventional solid cleat, as well as the simpler thin-cleats like in the
video.  I spent way too much time learning OpenSCAD syntax and semantics,
building my first couple of toolholders as OpenSCAD assemblies using simple
cube, triangle, calendar, union, difference...  (I hope I am using the
correct terminology).  Anyway, when I started thinking of making
toolholders out of tabbed-boxes is what send me down the current bunny
trail.  I am really only working on this late at night as I am starting to
wind down before I go to bed...  My current status is that I build the
profiles (in 2D), and then can add to them, extrude them, etc.  At this
point, I can parametrically generate the simplest of the thin cleats, with
a foot/standoff, a top(not sure what to best name it), side width, etc.
designs

The next step will be to take one or two of my toolholder designs and
make one or more.  My first modeled toolholder, which I have not made yet,
is for a lasercut Kobalt 24v charging station.  A charger is vertically
mounted on the top, there is room for 4 full sized batteries to slide and
lock into place, an open space in the back for the power cord, and the
bottom is flat so it can be carried around and set down on a work table.  I
even modeled the locking clip as a sandwiched 1/4" plywood cutouts with a
small finishing nail to act as alignment pin.  With any luck, that will
work, but it is a good learning exercise.  The one thing I have not figured
out yet is how to modify the cleat so that it also functions as an
erstwhile handle.

Adrian, I agree -- hashmap is WAY overkill, but to be frank, I am still
learning the OpenSCAD syntax and I came across heatmap before I came across
advanced associative arrays and structs.

Thanks all for the suggesting and feedback.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:09 PM Adrian Mariano via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

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

BOSL2 may have lots of stuff that is unneeded the vast majority of the time. However, the basics of BOSL2 have become essential to my use of OpenSCAD. Using up, down, left, right, fwd, and back, xrot, yrot, and zrot, xcyl, ycyl and zcyl, the anchors RIGHT, LEFT, TOP, BOT, FRONT and BACK, make your code so much more readable that I think it is a huge mistake to not use BOSL2. I do nothing without it in OpenSCAD. If I were king it would be incorporated into the base product.

-Bob

OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

BOSL2 may have lots of stuff that is unneeded the vast majority of the
time. However, the basics of BOSL2 have become essential to my use of
OpenSCAD. Using up, down, left, right, fwd, and back, xrot, yrot, and zrot,
xcyl, ycyl and zcyl, the anchors RIGHT, LEFT, TOP, BOT, FRONT and BACK,
make your code so much more readable that I think it is a huge mistake to
not use BOSL2. I do nothing without it in OpenSCAD. If I were king it would
be incorporated into the base product.

-Bob

On Mar 11, 2024, at 15:35, John David via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

Thank you, Ray,

I have seen a couple of the videos that "A Glimpse Inside" guy does, and
as I start building my toolholders I will likely go back and watch them
again in the future for ideas.  You are right.  Using BOSL2, or any of this
advanced stuff, is gross overkill.  I had already used OpenSCAD to model a
conventional solid cleat, as well as the simpler thin-cleats like in the
video.  I spent way too much time learning OpenSCAD syntax and semantics,
building my first couple of toolholders as OpenSCAD assemblies using simple
cube, triangle, calendar, union, difference...  (I hope I am using the
correct terminology).  Anyway, when I started thinking of making
toolholders out of tabbed-boxes is what send me down the current bunny
trail.  I am really only working on this late at night as I am starting to
wind down before I go to bed...  My current status is that I build the
profiles (in 2D), and then can add to them, extrude them, etc.  At this
point, I can parametrically generate the simplest of the thin cleats, with
a foot/standoff, a top(not sure what to best name it), side width, etc.
designs

The next step will be to take one or two of my toolholder designs and
make one or more.  My first modeled toolholder, which I have not made yet,
is for a lasercut Kobalt 24v charging station.  A charger is vertically
mounted on the top, there is room for 4 full sized batteries to slide and
lock into place, an open space in the back for the power cord, and the
bottom is flat so it can be carried around and set down on a work table.  I
even modeled the locking clip as a sandwiched 1/4" plywood cutouts with a
small finishing nail to act as alignment pin.  With any luck, that will
work, but it is a good learning exercise.  The one thing I have not figured
out yet is how to modify the cleat so that it also functions as an
erstwhile handle.

Adrian, I agree -- hashmap is WAY overkill, but to be frank, I am still
learning the OpenSCAD syntax and I came across heatmap before I came across
advanced associative arrays and structs.

Thanks all for the suggesting and feedback.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:09 PM Adrian Mariano via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

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

That comment is difficult to understand unless perhaps you have spent no time looking at it.

First some basic facts.

• Standard OS code still works in every instance I’m aware of.
• the basic 2D and 3D shape modules still work but have added arguments that you need not use, but anchor is really useful.

The new translate and rotate modules up, down, left, right, fwd, and back, xrot, yrot, and zrot. All are very intuitive and most of all, readable. They are also more writable, with fewer keystrokes.

• Up and down are translates on the Z axis. Up(a) I equivalent to translate([0, 0, a]). I think most will find "up" to be more readable.

• Right and left move on the x-axis. When dealing with 2D it’ clear that positive x is right and negative x is left. Again, a lot more readable than translate([a, 0, 0]).

• When you get to the Y axis, back must be +y and fwd, -y. This seems odd until you look ate the 3D rendering with the +X on the right. Then it makes perfect sense.

• xrot, yrot and zrot are simply rotations around a single axis, xrot(a) is equivalent to rotate([a, 0, 0]). I find them way more readable and writable, extra punctuation and extra zeros.

• I am better than average at visualization but I cannot visualize rotate([a, b, c]). I can however, visualize zrot(c) yrot(b) xrot(a), which is the equivalent.

• What if you actually want xrot(a) yrot(b) zrot(c), which is different? The equivalent is rotate([0, 0, c]) rotate([0, b, 0]) rotate([a, 0, 0]). Not easily readable.

Xcyl, ycyl and zcyl are just cylinders whose height is along the named dimension.

• Zcyl is equivalent to cylinder, but xcyl is equivalent to rotate([0, 90, 0]) cylinder(). Way easier to read or write. Ycyl left as an exercise.

Attachability in BOSL2 is complicated  and I rarely use it. However, anchors are the basis of attachability and I use them probably 95% of the time I create a 2D or 3D shape.

• an anchor is a place on the created shape
• TOP and BOTTOM are you guessed it, the top and bottom of the shape. Likewise for LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT and BACK.
• When you say cube([10, 20 30], anchor = TOP), the top center of the cube placed at the origin, [0, 0, 0].
• These anchors are additive, so you can say cube([10, 20 30], anchor = TOP + RIGHT + BACK). This produces a cube in lower, front, left (-z, -y, -x) quadrant.
• Adding works smoothly because TOP = [0, 0, 1] and BOTTOM or BOT = [0, 0, -1]. RIGHT = [1, 0, 0] and so on. On rare occasions I’ll use the 3D vector form because it makes sense to me in the particular context.

Everything above I learned in about 10 minutes I think. It makes my code much easier to read and faster to write. Probably 90% of my use of BOSL2 is this stuff. Much of the rest of BOSL2 probably overlaps Nop Head’s library. I have no idea if the two libraries are compatible.

There is a lot of other stuff in BOSL2 that you can find when you need it like shapes with chamfering and rounding and so on, but you can ignore it until you need it.

I harp on readability here. Decades ago I settled on that as the priority when I write code. You write it once but you read it many times. I was reminded of this recently. When I got my first 3D printer about 3 years ago I put aside an IOS app I was working in Xcode and Swift. I recently pulled it out and began working on it again. Boy did that remind me how important readability and comments are.

-Bob

OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

That comment is difficult to understand unless perhaps you have spent no
time looking at it.

First some basic facts.

• Standard OS code still works in every instance I’m aware of.
• the basic 2D and 3D shape modules still work but have added arguments
  that you need not use, but anchor is really useful.

The new translate and rotate modules up, down, left, right, fwd, and
back, xrot, yrot, and zrot. All are very intuitive and most of all,
readable. They are also more writable, with fewer keystrokes.

• Up and down are translates on the Z axis. Up(a) I equivalent to
  translate([0, 0, a]). I think most will find "up" to be more readable.

• Right and left move on the x-axis. When dealing with 2D it’ clear that
  positive x is right and negative x is left. Again, a lot more readable than
  translate([a, 0, 0]).

• When you get to the Y axis, back must be +y and fwd, -y. This seems odd
  until you look ate the 3D rendering with the +X on the right. Then it makes
  perfect sense.

• xrot, yrot and zrot are simply rotations around a single axis, xrot(a)
  is equivalent to rotate([a, 0, 0]). I find them way more readable and
  writable, extra punctuation and extra zeros.

• I am better than average at visualization but I cannot visualize
  rotate([a, b, c]). I can however, visualize zrot(c) yrot(b) xrot(a), which
  is the equivalent.

• What if you actually want xrot(a) yrot(b) zrot(c), which is different?
  The equivalent is rotate([0, 0, c]) rotate([0, b, 0]) rotate([a, 0, 0]).
  Not easily readable.

Xcyl, ycyl and zcyl are just cylinders whose height is along the named
dimension.

• Zcyl is equivalent to cylinder, but xcyl is equivalent to rotate([0,
  90, 0]) cylinder(). Way easier to read or write. Ycyl left as an exercise.

Attachability in BOSL2 is complicated  and I rarely use it. However,
anchors are the basis of attachability and I use them probably 95% of the
time I create a 2D or 3D shape.

• an anchor is a place on the created shape
• TOP and BOTTOM are you guessed it, the top and bottom of the shape.
  Likewise for LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT and BACK.
• When you say cube([10, 20 30], anchor = TOP), the top center of the
  cube placed at the origin, [0, 0, 0].
• These anchors are additive, so you can say cube([10, 20 30], anchor =
  TOP + RIGHT + BACK). This produces a cube in lower, front, left (-z, -y,
  -x) quadrant.
• Adding works smoothly because TOP = [0, 0, 1] and BOTTOM or BOT = [0,
  0, -1]. RIGHT = [1, 0, 0] and so on. On rare occasions I’ll use the 3D
  vector form because it makes sense to me in the particular context.

Everything above I learned in about 10 minutes I think. It makes my code
much easier to read and faster to write. Probably 90% of my use of BOSL2 is
this stuff. Much of the rest of BOSL2 probably overlaps Nop Head’s library.
I have no idea if the two libraries are compatible.

There is a lot of other stuff in BOSL2 that you can find when you need it
like shapes with chamfering and rounding and so on, but you can ignore it
until you need it.

I harp on readability here. Decades ago I settled on that as the priority
when I write code. You write it once but you read it many times. I was
reminded of this recently. When I got my first 3D printer about 3 years ago
I put aside an IOS app I was working in Xcode and Swift. I recently pulled
it out and began working on it again. Boy did that remind me how important
readability and comments are.

-Bob

On Mar 11, 2024, at 17:07, nop head via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

It is the opposite for me. I can understand basic OpenSCAD code with
translates and rotates but I can't understand any BOSL2 code. I would have
to learn a new language.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 23:18, Bob Carlson via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

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

I was actually responding to a comment Nop Head had made. No worries
though. Sounds like we have a similar background. My first programming job
was 1972.

-Bob

On Mar 12, 2024, at 18:47, John David ebo.2112@gmail.com wrote:

Bob, I am not sure what I wrote that you are objecting to (assuming the
objectionable comment is something I wrote).  I agree with most, if not
all, of what you have said.  I have yet to learn and use "attach".  I think
I am going to like it ;-)

With regards to readability and comments, I would also add using the
simplest standard features you can. Two of my funniest stories there are:

• My first paid programming job was helping to write the OS for an
  embedded environmental monitor (circa 1979).  The company that commissioned
  the project was to cheap to purchase an assembled for it (which cost $6,000
  in 1975 dollars), so we hand assembled the code into HEX...  Skip forward
  maybe 5 years later, a friend who took over the project and built some of
  his own embedded projects surrounding the same RCA-1802 chip (which BTW is
  one of the same chips in the Hubble imager).  He was fighting with
  maintaining some code, and I bet him a case of Coca-Cola that I could write
  him a fully relocatable macro assembler for that architecture in 24 hours
  flat.  Well, I ran into a bug, and I blew through the 24hr mark, but I had
  it running by the 36hr mark.  He paid me the case of coke anyway, and used
  it for years... I wrote this in strict ANSI-compliant C, with a few dozen
  test-driven development sanity checks...  Skip forward to 1999 (pre-Y2K),
  and my buddy needed to fix a Y2K bug in a couple of the embedded machines.
  He called me up with some trepidation to bounce a few ideas off me.  He
  then recompiled the 15 year-old assembler, made the changes to the assembly
  code, ran it through and reinstalled the executables on the machines in a
  couple of hours.  He bought me another case of coke just to say thanks ;-)

• the other story is about a PhD student I knew growing up, who developed
  a geometry compiler called G which was intended to provide low-level C-like
  geometric functionality similar to OpenSCAD primitives.  The heart of the
  compiler came down to about 6 lines of code that was so obfuscated, that I
  spent several months trying to wrap my head around them to fix a semantic
  bug and extend the functionality.  I gave up, but it was a readability
  lesson for me in my tender youth...

I am a strong proponent of eXtreme Programming (XP) and various literate
programming offshoots.  I really love how you can write your comments in
python and have the doc strings serve as hoverable documentation...

I'll go back and look at some of the shortcuts (like zrot, dire3ctions,
and attachment).

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 7:33 PM Bob Carlson via Discuss <
discuss@lists.openscad.org> wrote:

OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org