doug.moen wrote

I don't see any problem with a live representation of the changes. With the
program I am working on I just have Openscad sitting on one side of the
screen and the Python program beside it. When Python program writes an
updated .scad file Openscad  immediately shows the changes.

Clearly the Python system has to be designed to be extensible but I don't
see that being a problem. That could be done by allowing Python-created
shapes to be shared and/or by allowing new native-Openscad-shapes to be
usable by the Python system.

That reads like it would be necessary for the Python system itself to be a
complete CAD system - in essence an alternative to Openscad. I don't see it
like that. I would much prefer to see something that works closely with
Openscad.

...R

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

That kind of setup doesn't work for me. I use the customizer to tweak model parameters. The model parameters are input to the geometric primitives. If geometric primitives are written in Python, using the setup you describe above, then the model parameters must also be defined on the Python side, and the OpenSCAD customizer becomes useless.

The only way this meets the requirements I originally described is if OpenSCAD embeds Python as an extension language, and if OpenSCAD functions and modules can be written in Python. It would have to be possible to write something like use <foo.py> to load a Python module into an OpenSCAD program.

doug.moen wrote

I guess you are a much more sophisticated user than I am. I have in mind a
system that makes things easier for newbies rather than for experts.

I don't even know what the customizer is for.

...R

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

On 9/30/2019 11:03 AM, Robin2 wrote:

The key question there is "what is the hard part for newbies?".

Is it the raw typing, the part where you have to type c u b e ( [ ... ,
... , ... ] ) instead of just typing the three numbers (and some amount
of clicking?

Is it the syntax, the part where you have to remember that it's
cube([x,y,z]) rather than cube(x,y,z) or cube[x,y,z]?

Is it the geometry, where you're trying to understand how a sequence of
translates, rotates, and whatnot interact?

Is it the programming, where you're trying to do things like generate
multiple objects using loops?

Is it parameterization, where you're trying to figure out how to
represent objects using variables rather than constants, so that you can
change the variables and the object changes?

Is it the idiosyncrasies of the OpenSCAD language, where variables are
immutable and have what might be surprising scope rules?

Or is it something else?

Based on the beginner OpenSCAD programs that I've seen, the biggest
thing that would help would be an editor that was Really Harsh about
enforcing indentation rules.  Beginners (without other programming
experience) do not seem to understand how important that is to
understandability.

The customizer is an important feature for newbies. It lets you modify numeric model parameters by dragging a graphical slider, and you get immediate feedback in the previewer window. The customizer is something you should learn after learning about variables, but before learning about how to define functions and modules. It is pretty fundamental.

First, go to the View menu and uncheck "Hide Customizer".
Then go to the File menu and open Examples/Parametric/Sign.
Then play with the customizer controls on the right side of the window to modify the design.

Doug Moen.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at 2:03 PM, Robin2 wrote:

doug.moen wrote

It does not seem to be in my 2015.03-2 version. I tried to update with my
Linux Mint but it does not see the newer version even after updating the
PPA.

...R

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

You don't have the latest version. Go to
http://www.openscad.org/downloads.html and follow the instructions.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at 5:55 PM, Robin2 wrote:

Robin2 wrote

I'm kind of puzzled about this.  To me the whole reason to use OpenSCAD, and
its big strength, is that I can construct my model by writing code.  Aren't
there other packages like Blender or SketchUp that are designed from the
ground up for people who prefer a GUI interface?

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

adrianv wrote

Exactly.
When I first go into 3D printing I looked around as many of the CAD like
offering as I could try, I even considered commercial software (but most
were out of my $'range).
I found the 'traditional' mouse driven CAD cumbersome, if you want accuracy
you have to do various mousing-about then click on things to open parameters
then type in values etc.

Then I came across OpenSCAD, as I had a programming background it seemed
good, you just type out your specification for the thing, press F5 and there
it is. (after debugging...)

It was also very straight forward for beginners to pick up, and as a
programmer I could see the possibilities with sophisticated use.

As the tag line says "The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller" - that is what
it is.

It is not the GUI, draw a cube and move it around to sit on a cylinder.

That is another CAD program.

Admin - email* me if you need anything, or if I've done something stupid...

• click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.”  Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/  time is running out!

Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

This is perhaps the most highly desired feature request I have. Though it's unclear to me how it would be handled in a function context, since let() only sets the value of a variable for the parts of a function subordinate to the let().  Also, mutable variables become much more useful with a while() conditional loop statement.

I had been thinking of data-only objects, for building data structures for functions, actually.  Not sure this proposal would allow that.  In any case, at least having a hashtable would allow implementation of the majority of the more complicated structures.

This would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

While I've designed and created four domain specific languages, two of them were LISP-like, one was FORTH-like, and only one was a C-like language. That last one was designed to be compiled into the previously mentioned FORTH-like language. Any design help I could provide may be quirky and suspect.

Things like a version of linear_extrude() that can take an argument like anchor=LEFT, that lets you align the center of the left side of the extruded shape with the origin.  LEFT=[-1,0,0]

Pretty much exactly like how include <BOSL2/std.scad> expects the BOSL2 library to have been installed?  :-)

I would actually point to the string theory library for OpenSCAD as a starting place.
( https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:526023 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:526023 )

• Revar