AM
Adrian Mariano
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 12:05 AM
I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
really work.
I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
(even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
the design not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok. However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get one dimensional parameter right.
Edmund
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
Jordan,
I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to render and then measure and check ...
Edmund
On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown openscad@jordan.maileater.net wrote:
On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX. Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming" advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today, and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that assertion with one word: Word.)
And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work should be processed to produce the final result.
This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even the fact that it is a cube may have been derived through a complex process.
It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a circle.
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
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
really work.
I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
(even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
the *design* not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok. However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get one dimensional parameter right.
>
> Edmund
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
>> Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
>> to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
>> renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
>> just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
>> done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
>> Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
>> supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jordan,
>> >
>> > I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to render and then measure and check ...
>> >
>> > Edmund
>> >
>> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX. Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming" advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today, and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that assertion with one word: Word.)
>> >>
>> >> And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work should be processed to produce the final result.
>> >>
>> >> This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even the fact that it *is* a cube may have been derived through a complex process.
>> >>
>> >> It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a circle.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
FH
Father Horton
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 12:13 AM
I hack measurements sometimes on a quick-and-dirty project, but I'm never
happy about it, and I usually end up regretting it.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:05 PM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
really work.
I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
(even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
the design not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
wrote:
You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the
experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok.
However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so
fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and
that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a
Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to
hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had
no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM
meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience
with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get
one dimensional parameter right.
Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
Jordan,
I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user
frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having
to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for
something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the
layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one
really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to
render and then measure and check ...
Edmund
On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <
On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX.
Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to
provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for
layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive
environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming"
advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today,
and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often
back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that
assertion with one word: Word.)
And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing
programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you
want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work
should be processed to produce the final result.
This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from
other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to
there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple
thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even
the fact that it is a cube may have been derived through a complex
process.
It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a
"paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do
things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't
do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a
circle.
I hack measurements sometimes on a quick-and-dirty project, but I'm never
happy about it, and I usually end up regretting it.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:05 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
> dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
> a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
> When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
> occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
> questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
> to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
> never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
> how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
> really work.
>
> I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
> OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
> and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
> absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
> (even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
> I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
> constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
> just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
> the *design* not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
> I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
> my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the
> experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok.
> However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so
> fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and
> that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a
> Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to
> hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had
> no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM
> meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience
> with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get
> one dimensional parameter right.
> >
> > Edmund
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
> >> Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
> >> to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
> >> renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
> >> just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
> >> done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
> >> Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
> >> supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jordan,
> >> >
> >> > I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user
> frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having
> to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for
> something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the
> layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one
> really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to
> render and then measure and check ...
> >> >
> >> > Edmund
> >> >
> >> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <
> openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX.
> Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to
> provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for
> layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive
> environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming"
> advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today,
> and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often
> back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that
> assertion with one word: Word.)
> >> >>
> >> >> And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing
> programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you
> want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work
> should be processed to produce the final result.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from
> other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to
> there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple
> thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even
> the fact that it *is* a cube may have been derived through a complex
> process.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a
> "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do
> things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't
> do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a
> circle.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
ER
edmund ronald
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 12:14 AM
Actually, having to hack a versatec dvi driver to render on a custom Canon
engine was pretty typical in the early 1980s, as was the fact that we
didn't have a single computer with a bitmapped screen preview at that
point. Of course, a year or so after that Xerox machines arrived, with
large screens, very nice Wysiwyg software, keyboards with cut and paste
keys, mice, and other features which most serious computer people preferred
to categorise as .. totally useless.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:05 AM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
really work.
I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
(even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
the design not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
wrote:
You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the
experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok.
However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so
fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and
that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a
Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to
hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had
no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM
meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience
with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get
one dimensional parameter right.
Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com
Jordan,
I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user
frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having
to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for
something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the
layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one
really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to
render and then measure and check ...
Edmund
On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <
On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX.
Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to
provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for
layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive
environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming"
advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today,
and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often
back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that
assertion with one word: Word.)
And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing
programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you
want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work
should be processed to produce the final result.
This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from
other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to
there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple
thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even
the fact that it is a cube may have been derived through a complex
process.
It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a
"paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do
things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't
do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a
circle.
Actually, having to hack a versatec dvi driver to render on a custom Canon
engine was pretty typical in the early 1980s, as was the fact that we
didn't have a single computer with a bitmapped screen preview at that
point. Of course, a year or so after that Xerox machines arrived, with
large screens, very nice Wysiwyg software, keyboards with cut and paste
keys, mice, and other features which most serious computer people preferred
to categorise as .. totally useless.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:05 AM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
> dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
> a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
> When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
> occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
> questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
> to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
> never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
> how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
> really work.
>
> I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
> OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
> and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
> absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
> (even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
> I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
> constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
> just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
> the *design* not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
> I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
> my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the
> experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok.
> However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so
> fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and
> that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a
> Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to
> hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had
> no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM
> meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience
> with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get
> one dimensional parameter right.
> >
> > Edmund
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
> >> Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
> >> to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
> >> renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
> >> just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
> >> done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
> >> Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
> >> supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jordan,
> >> >
> >> > I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user
> frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having
> to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for
> something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the
> layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one
> really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to
> render and then measure and check ...
> >> >
> >> > Edmund
> >> >
> >> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <
> openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX.
> Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to
> provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for
> layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive
> environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming"
> advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today,
> and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often
> back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that
> assertion with one word: Word.)
> >> >>
> >> >> And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing
> programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you
> want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work
> should be processed to produce the final result.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from
> other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to
> there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple
> thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even
> the fact that it *is* a cube may have been derived through a complex
> process.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a
> "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do
> things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't
> do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a
> circle.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 12:43 AM
I didn't say hacking the dvi driver wasn't a common need. I said it
wasn't a good example of "why LaTeX is hard to use".
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 7:15 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, having to hack a versatec dvi driver to render on a custom Canon engine was pretty typical in the early 1980s, as was the fact that we didn't have a single computer with a bitmapped screen preview at that point. Of course, a year or so after that Xerox machines arrived, with large screens, very nice Wysiwyg software, keyboards with cut and paste keys, mice, and other features which most serious computer people preferred to categorise as .. totally useless.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:05 AM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
really work.
I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
(even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
the design not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok. However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get one dimensional parameter right.
Edmund
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano avm4@cornell.edu wrote:
Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald edmundronald@gmail.com wrote:
Jordan,
I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to render and then measure and check ...
Edmund
On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown openscad@jordan.maileater.net wrote:
On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX. Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming" advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today, and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that assertion with one word: Word.)
And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work should be processed to produce the final result.
This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even the fact that it is a cube may have been derived through a complex process.
It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a circle.
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
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
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
I didn't say hacking the dvi driver wasn't a common need. I said it
wasn't a good example of "why LaTeX is hard to use".
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 7:15 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, having to hack a versatec dvi driver to render on a custom Canon engine was pretty typical in the early 1980s, as was the fact that we didn't have a single computer with a bitmapped screen preview at that point. Of course, a year or so after that Xerox machines arrived, with large screens, very nice Wysiwyg software, keyboards with cut and paste keys, mice, and other features which most serious computer people preferred to categorise as .. totally useless.
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:05 AM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I do not think that being in a situation where you have to hack the
>> dvi driver to support local custom hardware is a reasonable example of
>> a problem with LaTeX. That's a kind of exceptional sort of problem.
>> When I learned LaTeX (in the early 90s) there was a LaTeX Guru who I
>> occasionally visited, but now it seems like the answers to all
>> questions are somewhere on stackexchange. In contrast, nobody seems
>> to have a clue how to make Word do anything. Experts in Word have
>> never existed, as far as I can tell. And if I look for insight into
>> how to do things in word I find nothing, or answers that still don't
>> really work.
>>
>> I have to admit some puzzlement with your situation regarding
>> OpenSCAD. To me, having to look at my model, make some measurement,
>> and then iterate the model sounds like a horrible coding method, and
>> absolutely to be avoided. In addition to being a tedious annoyance
>> (even if measurement is easy), it also means the model is brittle---if
>> I change anything I have to go back and reiterate to find the magic
>> constants for the altered model. I want to program my model so it's
>> just right from the beginning. Any iteration I do should be iterating
>> the *design* not the model. So if I found myself in a situation where
>> I wanted to measure the model I'd be thinking hard about how to change
>> my approach to avoid that very undesirable step.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > You are so right - every time I used Word for science work the experience was horrible. For writing I used it a lot, and it was ok. However, every time I used Latex, I got superior results, and it went so fast, and then BANG! somewhere something would be in the wrong place and that one problem would chew up half a day, and I would have to locate a Latex expert to help me. When I learnt TeX back in 1983 or so, I had to hack the dvi driver for the self-made laser printer in our lab, and I had no access to a bitmap display and so problem solving that SINGLE PROBLEM meant endless loops of compile and print. Which is exactly the experience with OpenSCAD, wonderfully rendered objects, and then hours of pain to get one dimensional parameter right.
>> >
>> > Edmund
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:52 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ha. For me the massive frustration is Word. If I am forced to use
>> >> Word I know to budget double the time for all the time wasted trying
>> >> to get Word to do things that are easy in LaTeX. Figures won't
>> >> renumber correctly. They'll number out of order. All sorts of stuff
>> >> just doesn't seem to work. It's so frustrating, and when you get
>> >> done, the output looks far inferior to the output produced by LaTeX.
>> >> Anytime someone asks me to use word I push back and see if I can
>> >> supply a pdf instead so I can stay away from that time sink.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Jordan,
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we're on the same page here. And we've all witnessed user frustration with TeX/Latex - about once every ten pages one ends up having to brute force it somehow, and that requires several tries and reprints for something to end up in the right place: a compile is needed to do the layout. In the same way with OpenSCAD there is an occasional case where one really needs to know where some point will render in space, one needs to render and then measure and check ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Edmund
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 1/16/2022 11:19 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think what is happening here is similar to what happened to TeX. Knuth designed a wonderful typesetting language, but he did not wish to provide for interactivity. In practice, interactivity is very useful for layouts, but it proved really hard to backfit any decent interactive environments to TeX, between the "interactive" and the "programming" advocates, and LaTeX layout still makes people cry from frustration today, and in practice a lot of people prefer to go for a Wysiwyg system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd say that the enormous majority go for WYSIWYG, though they often back-fill pseudo-programming onto it using styles. (I can support that assertion with one word: Word.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And yes, there are strong similarities. WYSIWYG and drawing programs are about shoving your work around until it looks the way you want. TeX and OpenSCAD are about writing rules that say how your work should be processed to produce the final result.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a common mental disconnect when people come to OpenSCAD from other environments. They say "I want to move that cube from here to there", and they don't understand that the cube's location is not a simple thing and may have been derived through some complex process... and even the fact that it *is* a cube may have been derived through a complex process.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's also sort of like the difference between a "draw" program and a "paint" program, that because "draw" programs work with shapes they can do things like re-stack or rearrange the shapes that a "paint" program can't do... and at the same time they can't easily do things like erase half of a circle.
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
JB
Jordan Brown
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 12:46 AM
On 1/16/2022 4:43 PM, Adrian Mariano wrote:
I didn't say hacking the dvi driver wasn't a common need. I said it
wasn't a good example of "why LaTeX is hard to use".
And comparing TeX in the 1980s to Word in the 2020s is a bit of a stretch.
But really we should drop the word processor wars; they're way off topic.
On 1/16/2022 4:43 PM, Adrian Mariano wrote:
> I didn't say hacking the dvi driver wasn't a common need. I said it
> wasn't a good example of "why LaTeX is hard to use".
And comparing TeX in the 1980s to Word in the 2020s is a bit of a stretch.
But really we should drop the word processor wars; they're way off topic.
WF
William F. Adams
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 3:23 PM
FWIW, I find (La)TeX quite workable, and far more reliable than Word. If typography were easy, Word wouldn't be the foetid mess which it is --- at least (La)TeX acknowledges the difficulty and affords one the tools to do pretty much anything, including tasks which are deemed impossible in other tools (classic example, )Life Cast: Behind the Mask Hardcover_ by Willa Shalit where each paragraph had to have the same proportions as the image on the facing page --- program one macro to analyze the image size and set the text, and the entire book resolves itself.
By way of contrast, even when working in Microsoft Word using only styles, things get unreliable as soon as one gets beyond a single file of formatted text --- any Word document which places a graphic, or which embeds/references another Word document will inevitably become corrupt in my experience after some period of editing/interaction.
I'll often program in a module in OpenSCAD where it draws in blocks which can be used to verify dimensions/placement --- having a way to directly measure on screen would be nice, but I'd still probably find the algorithmic option useful.
It would be nice if technical drawing were easier --- it was rather challenging getting OpenCAD and LaTeX and METAPOST to play along and work together:
https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb40-2/tb125adams-3d.pdf
What I'd really like to see is a tool which:
- makes 3D interactive and allows placing nodes/vectors in addition to 3D modeling - used an interactive block or node or flow programming system - allows writing out arbitrary text files w/ user control over filename and extensions
Currently installing Ryven and its PythonOCC support:
https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven
which I'm hoping will address all the above.
William
FWIW, I find (La)TeX quite workable, and far more reliable than Word. If typography were easy, Word wouldn't be the foetid mess which it is --- at least (La)TeX acknowledges the difficulty and affords one the tools to do pretty much anything, including tasks which are deemed impossible in other tools (classic example, )Life Cast: Behind the Mask Hardcover_ by Willa Shalit where each paragraph had to have the same proportions as the image on the facing page --- program one macro to analyze the image size and set the text, and the entire book resolves itself.
By way of contrast, even when working in Microsoft Word using only styles, things get unreliable as soon as one gets beyond a single file of formatted text --- any Word document which places a graphic, or which embeds/references another Word document will inevitably become corrupt in my experience after some period of editing/interaction.
I'll often program in a module in OpenSCAD where it draws in blocks which can be used to verify dimensions/placement --- having a way to directly measure on screen would be nice, but I'd still probably find the algorithmic option useful.
It would be nice if technical drawing were easier --- it was rather challenging getting OpenCAD and LaTeX and METAPOST to play along and work together:
https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb40-2/tb125adams-3d.pdf
What I'd really like to see is a tool which:
- makes 3D interactive and allows placing nodes/vectors in addition to 3D modeling - used an interactive block or node or flow programming system - allows writing out arbitrary text files w/ user control over filename and extensions
Currently installing Ryven and its PythonOCC support:
https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven
which I'm hoping will address all the above.
William
BC
Bob Carter
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 5:42 PM
Happy to be a tester for you if you want to try your changes on Big Sur or Catalina
On 16 Jan 2022, at 22:08, David Phillip Oster davidphilliposter@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bob C. You've motivated me to check out the source code, see if I can compile it, and file some bugs, where the program fails to behave like a Macintosh app.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 1:37 PM Bob Carter <caggius@gmail.com mailto:caggius@gmail.com> wrote:
Odd,
I replicated it multiple times just to find out what I did before asking for help.
OpenSCAD version 2022.01.14 (git e6894b77a)
MacOS Big Sur 11.6.2
We do however have slightly different preferences set - though as far as I know these are the system defaults as I had not heard of them before your response and I can not recall ever changing them.
[] Ask to keep changes when closing documents was not checked
[] Close windows when quitting an app was checked
I unchecked both, and the quit still does not offer a save prompt but I am now seeing save files in Documents/OpenSCAD/backups for the first time since I installed 11.2.3
thanks Bob C.
On 16 Jan 2022, at 21:14, David Phillip Oster <davidphilliposter@gmail.com mailto:davidphilliposter@gmail.com> wrote:
I was not able to reproduce the quit without saving behavior with OpenSCAD version 2021.01, and macOS 12.1, when in the Mac's System Preferences > General [] Ask to keep changes when closing documents was not checked, [] Close windows when quitting an app was also not checked.
I opened the OpenSCAD app, and typed sphere(d=60); into the editor. Then I opened a new window, then hit Quit from the menu bar. I got the expected alert saying:
Some tabs have unsaved changes.
Do you want to save all your changes?
(Don't Save) (Cancel) (Save All)
This is what I'd expect a Macintosh app to do. Almost. The alert seems to think I have multiple tabs open when in fact I have multiple windows open.
If I hit (Cancel) the quit action is canceled. If I hit Don't Save then it doesn't save and the quit action completes.
It looks like you told it not to save, then complained when it did what you told it to do.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 4:06 AM Bob Carter <caggius@gmail.com mailto:caggius@gmail.com> wrote:
It is easily replicated and is definitely a Mac only thing, as only a Mac has a separate menu bar at the top of the screen shared by multiple windows.
Basically whilst distracted by my partner I hit the Quit Openscad from the Menu Bar instead of using the close button on the title bar of the second OpenSCAD window, .
Instantly closing all open windows is consistent with other MAC applications.
Not checking for unsaved changes when Quit’ing seems to be the default in OpenSCAD even for a single window with changes in it.
However most Mac applications such as Mail, will on Quit Mail save the contents of all open windows (e.g. the 'Compose new Message” window that I am currently using to type this note in. It will then recreate this second window when the application is restarted.
Similarly the Brave Browser will on Quit Brave remember the open tabs and reload them but it will not do so when it has been closed via the close button.
So there is a case to argue that Mac needs the extra save check function as it is possible to Quit and loose all of your design changes - but this is totally unique to the Mac interface and it looks like I am the only one to have fallen foul of it to date and admit to my stupidity - so I would not put a high priority on it.
cheers
Bob.C
On 15 Jan 2022, at 23:57, MichaelAtOz <oz.at.michael@gmail.com mailto:oz.at.michael@gmail.com> wrote:
If you can replicate it, and list the steps so someone can confirm, I'd say that is a bug that needs fixing.
It could also be a Mac thing. I don't think my original 128K Mac will run OpenSCAD, so I can't test.
From: Bob Carter [mailto:caggius@gmail.com mailto:caggius@gmail.com]
Sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:15
To: OpenSCAD general discussion
Subject: [OpenSCAD] Re: Autosave/Recovery
Not on Mac - there is the “*” in the file title - the problem arose because I opened the second file from finder which opens it in a separate window and not in a tab - so I had two windows open and not two tabs.
I went to OpenScad-> Quit Openscad on the active window which had no changes expecting it to quit that window and it quit both windows simultaneously without a save prompt for all of the changed data in the other window….
thanks
Bob.C
On 15 Jan 2022, at 23:01, MichaelAtOz <oz.at.michael@gmail.com mailto:oz.at.michael@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you se something like this when you F5 or F6 with unsaved changes?
Parsing design (AST generation)...
Saved backup file: C:/Users/MeB/Documents/OpenSCAD/backups/unsaved-backup-ncSSIhWS.scad
Also closing with unsaved changes should get:
<image001.jpg>
Do you?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Carter [mailto:caggius@gmail.com mailto:caggius@gmail.com]
Sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 09:18
To: OpenSCAD general discussion
Subject: [OpenSCAD] Autosave/Recovery
OK I have been an idiot and whilst distracted by my other half I closed all open windows
and not just the one - loosing about an hours work in Openscad.
So in hope more than anticipation I looked in my Documents/Openscad/backups folder and
nothing has been saved there since 2020. Just checked my Privacy Preferences and Openscad
does have write access to my documents folder.
Is autosave switched off in the development line, or have I misunderstood when autosave
operates ? I had loaded macOS 220114 this morning….
thanks
Bob.C
OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
Happy to be a tester for you if you want to try your changes on Big Sur or Catalina
> On 16 Jan 2022, at 22:08, David Phillip Oster <davidphilliposter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Bob C. You've motivated me to check out the source code, see if I can compile it, and file some bugs, where the program fails to behave like a Macintosh app.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 1:37 PM Bob Carter <caggius@gmail.com <mailto:caggius@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Odd,
> I replicated it multiple times just to find out what I did before asking for help.
>
> OpenSCAD version 2022.01.14 (git e6894b77a)
> MacOS Big Sur 11.6.2
>
> We do however have slightly different preferences set - though as far as I know these are the system defaults as I had not heard of them before your response and I can not recall ever changing them.
>
> [] Ask to keep changes when closing documents was not checked
> [] Close windows when quitting an app was checked
>
> I unchecked both, and the quit still does not offer a save prompt but I am now seeing save files in Documents/OpenSCAD/backups for the first time since I installed 11.2.3
>
> thanks Bob C.
>
>
>> On 16 Jan 2022, at 21:14, David Phillip Oster <davidphilliposter@gmail.com <mailto:davidphilliposter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I was not able to reproduce the quit without saving behavior with OpenSCAD version 2021.01, and macOS 12.1, when in the Mac's System Preferences > General [] Ask to keep changes when closing documents was not checked, [] Close windows when quitting an app was also not checked.
>>
>> I opened the OpenSCAD app, and typed sphere(d=60); into the editor. Then I opened a new window, then hit Quit from the menu bar. I got the expected alert saying:
>>
>> Some tabs have unsaved changes.
>> Do you want to save all your changes?
>> (Don't Save) (Cancel) (Save All)
>>
>> This is what I'd expect a Macintosh app to do. Almost. The alert seems to think I have multiple tabs open when in fact I have multiple windows open.
>>
>> If I hit (Cancel) the quit action is canceled. If I hit Don't Save then it doesn't save and the quit action completes.
>>
>> It looks like you told it not to save, then complained when it did what you told it to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 4:06 AM Bob Carter <caggius@gmail.com <mailto:caggius@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> It is easily replicated and is definitely a Mac only thing, as only a Mac has a separate menu bar at the top of the screen shared by multiple windows.
>>
>> Basically whilst distracted by my partner I hit the Quit Openscad from the Menu Bar instead of using the close button on the title bar of the second OpenSCAD window, .
>>
>> Instantly closing all open windows is consistent with other MAC applications.
>>
>> Not checking for unsaved changes when Quit’ing seems to be the default in OpenSCAD even for a single window with changes in it.
>>
>> However most Mac applications such as Mail, will on Quit Mail save the contents of all open windows (e.g. the 'Compose new Message” window that I am currently using to type this note in. It will then recreate this second window when the application is restarted.
>>
>> Similarly the Brave Browser will on Quit Brave remember the open tabs and reload them but it will not do so when it has been closed via the close button.
>>
>> So there is a case to argue that Mac needs the extra save check function as it is possible to Quit and loose all of your design changes - but this is totally unique to the Mac interface and it looks like I am the only one to have fallen foul of it to date and admit to my stupidity - so I would not put a high priority on it.
>>
>> cheers
>> Bob.C
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2022, at 23:57, MichaelAtOz <oz.at.michael@gmail.com <mailto:oz.at.michael@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you can replicate it, and list the steps so someone can confirm, I'd say that is a bug that needs fixing.
>>> It could also be a Mac thing. I don't think my original 128K Mac will run OpenSCAD, so I can't test.
>>>
>>> From: Bob Carter [mailto:caggius@gmail.com <mailto:caggius@gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:15
>>> To: OpenSCAD general discussion
>>> Subject: [OpenSCAD] Re: Autosave/Recovery
>>>
>>> Not on Mac - there is the “*” in the file title - the problem arose because I opened the second file from finder which opens it in a separate window and not in a tab - so I had two windows open and not two tabs.
>>>
>>> I went to OpenScad-> Quit Openscad on the active window which had no changes expecting it to quit that window and it quit both windows simultaneously without a save prompt for all of the changed data in the other window….
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Bob.C
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2022, at 23:01, MichaelAtOz <oz.at.michael@gmail.com <mailto:oz.at.michael@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you se something like this when you F5 or F6 with unsaved changes?
>>>
>>> Parsing design (AST generation)...
>>> Saved backup file: C:/Users/MeB/Documents/OpenSCAD/backups/unsaved-backup-ncSSIhWS.scad
>>>
>>> Also closing with unsaved changes should get:
>>>
>>> <image001.jpg>
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Bob Carter [mailto:caggius@gmail.com <mailto:caggius@gmail.com>]
>>> > Sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 09:18
>>> > To: OpenSCAD general discussion
>>> > Subject: [OpenSCAD] Autosave/Recovery
>>> >
>>> > OK I have been an idiot and whilst distracted by my other half I closed all open windows
>>> > and not just the one - loosing about an hours work in Openscad.
>>> >
>>> > So in hope more than anticipation I looked in my Documents/Openscad/backups folder and
>>> > nothing has been saved there since 2020. Just checked my Privacy Preferences and Openscad
>>> > does have write access to my documents folder.
>>> >
>>> > Is autosave switched off in the development line, or have I misunderstood when autosave
>>> > operates ? I had loaded macOS 220114 this morning….
>>> >
>>> > thanks
>>> > Bob.C
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> <>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
TP
Torsten Paul
Mon, Jan 17, 2022 7:46 PM
On 16.01.22 23:08, David Phillip Oster wrote:
Thank you Bob C. You've motivated me to check out the source code,
see if I can compile it, and file some bugs, where the program
fails to behave like a Macintosh app.
Note that the chances of very MacOS specific behaviors to be
integrated is not too high. It has to be supported by Qt5 and
not create a huge amount of specific code.
Without many developers actually working on MacOS it's simply
not maintainable otherwise. And Apple still forbids use of
MacOS on anything other than Apple hardware. Maybe (hopefully)
both will change at some point, but keeping MacOS supported
has been way too time consuming in the recent past.
That said, there's some nice work going on for M1 support,
maybe even an universal build (fingers crossed). So it's not
all doom and gloom :).
ciao,
Torsten.
On 16.01.22 23:08, David Phillip Oster wrote:
> Thank you Bob C. You've motivated me to check out the source code,
> see if I can compile it, and file some bugs, where the program
> fails to behave like a Macintosh app.
Note that the chances of very MacOS specific behaviors to be
integrated is not too high. It has to be supported by Qt5 and
not create a huge amount of specific code.
Without many developers actually working on MacOS it's simply
not maintainable otherwise. And Apple still forbids use of
MacOS on anything other than Apple hardware. Maybe (hopefully)
both will change at some point, but keeping MacOS supported
has been way too time consuming in the recent past.
That said, there's some nice work going on for M1 support,
maybe even an universal build (fingers crossed). So it's not
all doom and gloom :).
ciao,
Torsten.
