TheSwamp
Code Red => AutoLISP (Vanilla / Visual) => Topic started by: It's Alive! on July 12, 2007, 05:50:42 AM
-
While doing a little house cleaning I ran across a few versions of stdlib. I was just wondering if anyone used this.
-
We are running a very old version (2000i) of acad, and out of the lisp programs we have, many of them do use the StdLib.
-
I have used it Daniel .. years ago .. [ insert geriatric story here ]
If I recall, our MP gets a mention in there somewhere too. Interesting project !
It's a chicken / egg situation. If you can understand it you probably don't need it.
-
???
Never heard of it
Explaination Please
-
StdLib was a behemoth of a library written by Reini Urban. I think I probably got a nod because I responded to a challenge to write a function to calculate combinations. While I give Reini props for attempting to write and make available such a huge library can't say I ever used it or endorsed it. As I recall it was a highly coupled library, making it challenging for casual use. Having said that I know folks who use it extensively, like my friend David Kozina, so maybe I'm just being a snot.
-
I might still have it, in one of my CD's somewhere.....
After, a try, did not like it at all..... it was to much cream on all the functions..... :-D
-
tried it, didn't like it ... much too disjointed for my liking, even though I still have an STDlib on my HD ...
hehe .. I just realized something .. good thing it isn't contageous
-
Is this it?
STDLib (http://autocad.xarch.at/stdlib/)
-
^
That's the one.
-
Thanks Luis,
I'll look at it a bit.
-
Strange, it seems I have a newer version than what’s on this site???
-
I do not know why - younger lispers - would like to use it..... but as they said, no one learns from other mistakes.... yeah!
-
I guess I'll bite...
how many STD's do you HAVE if you need a library to organize 'em?! :ugly:
-
I guess I'll bite...
how many STD's do you HAVE if you need a library to organize 'em?! :ugly:
You mean like a STDlib lib?
-
I searched thru the lib once with the idea i could start to use it, but its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another. Very `web' like.
I have started to re-build my own library. I dont have much at the moment, but hopefully soon i will be back up and running.
-
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.
Highly coupled (http://www.answers.com/topic/coupling-computer-science).
Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.
-
Highly coupled
Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.
In a thread titled STDLib?
Whodathunk?
-
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.
Highly coupled (http://www.answers.com/topic/coupling-computer-science).
Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.
Sounds good to me.
-
Interesting! So what made this library unpopular, was the fact that it was too difficult to read the internal workings/functions
and not how well the library functioned as a library?
-
Interesting! So what made this library unpopular, was the fact that it was too difficult to read the internal workings/functions
and not how well the library functioned as a library?
Daniel;
Are you thinking on using it?
I knew of that library back on 1998 or earlier, so has been a while, to me it was too complex.
-
Are you thinking on using it?
Hi Luis,
No I am not using it, by the time I found it, it was already a dieing project. I also found it too complex as a “learn by example library”, which I know it wasn’t intended for. When I re-discovered it, I was curious as to why this project failed and why there weren’t more of its kind. I suppose the joys of learning lisp include building your own libraries, so in the end Kerry’s comment is correct.
Dan
-
Interesting! So what made this library unpopular, was the fact that it was too difficult to read the internal workings/functions
and not how well the library functioned as a library?
Im all for it in theory; in fact i was trying to assemble a proposal for creating one for `OpenDCL'... But, back to the topic at hand, for me it was to `Highly coupled' to be of any use as either a learning tool (Im still learning lisp) or for use in production.
Im not quite sure i understand your ``how well the lib functioned'' question; i may have to look at this again to see if there are any ``special features'' i wanst aware of.
-
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.
Highly coupled (http://www.answers.com/topic/coupling-computer-science).
Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.
What??? I just got here... I've been out for the past two days.
-
Im all for it in theory; in fact i was trying to assemble a proposal for creating one for `OpenDCL'...
I was thinking about this as well,
Im not quite sure i understand your ``how well the lib functioned'' question; i may have to look at this again to see if there are any ``special features'' i wanst aware of.
My question, was based on the assumption that what everyone means in `Highly coupled' being a negative,
is that it was too difficult to go into the source and borrow an individual function or method, to either learn from or for ones own library ,
because of the interdependence on other functions.
In looking at the help file, it is clearly not too difficult to use as the library it was intended for.
I.e. loading the library and calling one of its methods.
Maybe I was wrong though
-
My question, was based on the assumption that what everyone means in `Highly coupled' being a negative,
is that it was too difficult to go into the source and borrow an individual function or method, to either learn from or for ones own library ,
because of the interdependence on other functions.
In looking at the help file, it is clearly not too difficult to use as the library it was intended for.
I.e. loading the library and calling one of its methods.
Maybe I was wrong though
If the idea or intention is to simple have it as a library, and using it, then there is no big deal, but if some other programmer want it to add, update, make changes, then it is not that easy.
Remember that all the lispers do not follow structures, and it is not because of them it is because the language is like that.
Now, if is going to be for some core of programmers that will be adding or making updates by following your structure, then it is another story.
Go for it!
-
Im not quite sure i understand your ``how well the lib functioned'' question; i may have to look at this again to see if there are any ``special features'' i wanst aware of.
My question, was based on the assumption that what everyone means in `Highly coupled' being a negative, is that it was too difficult to go into the source and borrow an individual function or method, to either learn from or for ones own library , because of the interdependence on other functions.
In looking at the help file, it is clearly not too difficult to use as the library it was intended for. I.e. loading the library and calling one of its methods. Maybe I was wrong though
`Highly coupled' causes library misfunction. A library of procedures should not contain to much `dependency'.
Read thru the end of page:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html#%_sec_1.1.8
However, I can see why one would like some `coupling' of procedures. it allows for major feature changes library wide with little overhead, but those changes can only be made by one who can understand, navigate and manulipate the procedures so that is why i tend not to in my procedures. I try to create `black-box' procedures.
-
Exactly!!
So a procedure definition should be able to suppress detail. The users of the procedure may not have written the procedure themselves, but may have obtained it from another programmer as a black box. A user should not need to know how the procedure is implemented in order to use it.
In the case of STDlib, was it our “Need” to understand what was in the black box (the procedures objects within the global framework)
that added the layer of what we perceived as complexity, instead of the layer of abstraction the programmer intended?
you think that's air your breathing? hmmm
-
I dont know. Yes, i think that people (including me) wanted to learn from the code and then became confused and gave up on the whole thing. But what also lead to its unpopularity is that a person wanting to maintain this lib could spend HOURS just tracking down all the dependents to make minor changes or end up changing or breaking other, existing code which uses the lib. But ultimately I think that the lib should have taken full advantage of all the aspects the (A) lisp dialect has to offer. For instance; each `Black-box' should use a `block structure' and also utilize `lexical scope'.
-
Let go to a some worst case scenario:
I know the comparison can't be the same... but let say you want to do your own updates to the opendcl project, and there is no available the VCBuildHook and it was used some proprietary libraries that are not open source, how you do it? - do you have to wait until they come up with your wish list?
Maybe I am just an old person....
-
It’s a good point Luis,
I disliked the idea “having” to use a third party utility such as Owens VCBuildHook. That was until I understood that it was only invoking an already needed compiler to make the build and was in no way stopping me from building the old fashion way. Granted it took learning how to use it. But now I think it’s a must have tool for doing ARX.
Other than that, I am not even close to being qualified to critique Owens code.
Dan
-
It’s a good point Luis,
I disliked the idea “having” to use a third party utility such as Owens VCBuildHook. That was until I understood that it was only invoking an already needed compiler to make the build and was in no way stopping me from building the old fashion way. Granted it took learning how to use it. But now I think it’s a must have tool for doing ARX.
Other than that, I am not even close to being qualified to critique Owens code.
Dan
It was just an example....
I never had try Owen utility and I am sure must be very good and it will be available for a long time.
In my case, I only write routines for my own use, and it is very simple to write everything using the VS2005 and being able to use the same files and code, in VS2002, not a big deal.
Going back, to an standard library..... it is a good idea, the std one as you can see, it is not too popular per see..... :)
PS. and no I am in no way qualified at all to critique master Owen's work.
-
I am sure that most of the coders here have a STDLib of there own. I do, but until recently they have all been in text format and when I need something I copy/paste into my program, (mainly to avoid the dependency issues) A few months ago I started taking those text files and turning them into STD procedures not dependent on other procedures.
I had thought about bringing this up to the group, maybe a swamp library??
All my functions are called with my developers sig- (defun TGS:CreateLayer for example)
Maybe a folder for the individual files but also a .fas with all of the files? (well documented of course)
Just a thought...Anyone
-
I have no issues with something being dependent upon another routine in a library ... but after a while, when a library becomes so interdependent upon other files, you are left with an all or none proposition ... and to top it off, when the code for one routine is updated (as has been done in the past) you either have to change the calling function to work with the new version, or you have to ensure the user has the old version of the library.
-
From my perspective,
Updating files in a library should never be an issue for concern. It all comes down to your design philosophy. If the coder is disciplined, (and who among us isn't), changing the code in a library should have no repercussions provided the basic rules are followed ... Don't change a method signature and don't change any side affects ; if either of these NEED to be changed then the function gets a new name, and documented accordingly.
-
I concur with that assessment .. unfortunately, many coders lack that ability ... and I do not mean Reini .. I have found him to be a very capable codesmith
-
From my perspective,
Updating files in a library should never be an issue for concern. It all comes down to your design philosophy. If the coder is disciplined, (and who among us isn't), changing the code in a library should have no repercussions provided the basic rules are followed ...
Well said.
Don't change a method signature and don't change any side affects ; if either of these NEED to be changed then the function gets a new name, and documented accordingly.
... and leave the existing function in place. If invoked prints out a "Note: Function Deprecated, See replacement function: XXX" type notification.
-
... and leave the existing function in place. If invoked prints out a "Note: Function Deprecated, See replacement function: XXX" type notification.
Interesting, I know that a compiler’s pre-processor generally gives out these types of warnings.
But would not a warning upon invocation of a depreciated method break code in lisp?
-
... and leave the existing function in place. If invoked prints out a "Note: Function Deprecated, See replacement function: XXX" type notification.
Interesting, I know that a compiler’s pre-processor generally gives out these types of warnings.
But would not a warning upon invocation of a depreciated method break code in lisp?
The message could be added as a simple prompt to the command-line without affecting the functional integrity of the routine ..
-
(defun _Foo ( arg1 )
(princ
(strcat
"Note: _Foo function is deprecated, see "
"replacement function _FooNew.\n"
)
)
;; All the former stuff _Foo did it still does, after
;; printing out the prompt above ...
)
(defun _FooNew ( arg1 arg2 )
;; New signature, new definition ...
)
If _Foo is invoked it still works, but it prints out the deprecated message, which refers to _FooNew.
Clear as mud?
:)
-
Hmm, I think that it would force a rebuild of all prior “working” applications upon deployment of a new library.
Call me a snot but., I don’t want my users seeing these messages.
-
Ahhhhh ... there are 2 issues here primarily concerned with definition of terms.
By 'Library'
do we mean
a) A collection of functions I maintain for my own use
or b) A collection of functions released to the public for inclusion/reference in the work of others.
-
Hmm, I think that it would force a rebuild of all prior “working” applications upon deployment of a new library.
Exactly.
Call me a snot but., I don’t want my users seeing these messages.
What's the alternative?
It might be important to note that if you are the only one using your library than you needn't use this strategy if you update all reliant code if / when you change a function's signature.
However, if you're the author of a library like StdLib that is utilized by multiple developers, you have an obligation to inform them of changes to the library. Aside from headers etc. how would you ensure consumers of a LISP library be advised of deprecated functions etc?
-
or b) A collection of functions released to the public for inclusion/reference in the work of others.
B
What's the alternative?
A new function name as Kerry suggested.
-
A new function name as Kerry suggested.
I guess we agree on that, because I subscribe to the same strategy.
Where we disagree is that I believe consumers of said library should be notified when they invoke antiquated / deprecated functions.
But hey, we are entitled to our opinions / styles. Thank goodness for that.
:)
-
... I believe consumers of said library should be notified when they invoke antiquated / deprecated functions.
Just think if Microsoft did this, what would you see? :-D
-
I've often noticed a 'Method/Class is deprecated' warning message in the IDE.
Autodesk have also used that message when transitioning from one .NET API to another.
It's a big topic, and definitely worthy of some discussion.
-
C'mon, it's apples and fish.
For example with .NET you do get a warning at development time if you're referencing a deprecated method or property. You don't have that option with LISP. Frankly I'd rather my user's see a message rather than continue to use out of date functions.
Mileages ...
:)
-
I can certainly see where a message from a replaced function can be helpful. In the end, the user knows that something has changed and they might be encouraged to change the implementation of that function. However, in the case of having a distributed work, the development team would undoubtedly field numerous calls wondering what is going on. Since most computer users are utterly clueless about writing any kind of code, they would not know how to handle the problem aside from putting in a call to IT. .. of course that creates its own set of issues .. such as, if the development staff is worth their pay, they will be using the latest libraries and will issue updates to their users when functions change.
-
Or the end user did not acquire the latest version of a certain program and could potentially plagued with warning messages if the end user just so happens to get their hands on some other package using newer libraries.
I suppose there could be a way to suppress the warning messages via some flag
All these issues can be solved
-
how would you ensure consumers of a LISP library be advised of deprecated functions etc?
Isn't this where good documentation come into play. If the developer ,who uses the library, downloads the "latest" then he/she would have the new change log, in the changelog there would be:
NewFuntions
DsicontinuedFunctions
ReplacedFunctions
UpdatedFunctions
Yeah??
-
and the beauty of autolisp, is that it is so simple, anyone can learn it... why it is the intention to make it difficult?.... a question to the philosophical gods... <they answer with a very low voice>...because that's how it is, they will look for the hard work most of the times... le!
-
If the developer ,who uses the library, downloads the "latest" then he/she would have the new change log, in the changelog there would be ...
In other words it's your experience people actually read logs, readme files etc? Wooooo, that's a gasser!
:-D
-
Thats all fine and great but where do we sit? Will there be a lib? Who will PM a huge undertaking? Who will this lib be developed for (ODCL, general, etc.). What are the time lines, what are the stds, etc.
<blah, blah-it's a go-ahead> theSwamp is already setup for professional code development, but who is to host the lib (will Mark allow something of that nature to be hosted here? --if its ODCL, i assume that we will upload milestones on the sourceforge project but i would still assume that Mark will ``host'' the development.)
The code is the easy part, ground rules must be established first.
-
Will there be a lib?
Right after the Open Source Survey and Document Management Libraries are finished.
-
:wink:
-
I wasnt part of those projects.
I've already started work on my end (before this thread came about; I started work on a LIB proposal when i had a private conversation with a friend of mine about a month ago.), but now im waiting to hear the response to another ODCL question before i do anything further.
-
... but now im waiting to hear the response to another ODCL question before i do anything further.
What are you talking about John ?
-
... but now im waiting to hear the response to another ODCL question before i do anything further.
What are you talking about John ?
The thread about the new forum...[ https://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=17468.msg213003#msg213003 ]
I guess, I was hoping to see more of a meld of the `open community' (I know it makes me sound a bit credulous or just makes me seem foolish but i dont mind i guess.). But, to be blunt--and you know that i ultimately dont mean to be `gruff'...--i think it was a missed opportunity when OpenDCL decided to create a forum separate of this one (i had just noticed that thread this evening.).
That being said, i do not think that *I* will continue working on a OpenDCL AutoLisp std library.
-
Will there be a lib?
Right after the Open Source Survey and Document Management Libraries are finished.
I was really looking forward to learning (teaching myself) some interesting things working on the survey package. Unfortunately, the driver of that project lost interest, and I didn't have any idea what to do next without his direction. Surveying isn't my field.
-
I guess, I was hoping to see more of a meld of the 'open community' (I know it makes me sound a bit credulous or just makes me seem foolish but i dont mind i guess).
John ... there is a glut of "Open Community meld" going on at the swamp, especially with regards to AutoLISP. There are approximately 2500 separate threads specific to AutoLISP alone, never mind the cross pollination that occurs between forums where AutoLISP gets anted up as a solution or remedy to a problem that may not necessarily be floated originally as an AutoLISP challenge. Simply put, the swamp is the envy of most other AutoLISP discussion forums.
My response with regards to "after the survey package" etc. was a vague reference to the challenges and difficulties any library team would face trying to compile a common library. History has shown it's extremely difficult to achieve consensus on coding standards and styles unless it's mandated and policed from the top down. Or done solo. It's largely because a committee is a 12 legged creature that tries to crawl in 6 different directions.
Even with a "Manager Elect" it's challenging at best to have the kind of sustained passion and determination it takes to build a complete, solid, efficient and professional level library unless you start with committed professionals with shared goals, ideals and benefit (not necessarily economic). I just don't see said folks having a long burn interest because this one has comparatively little benefit in contrast to other projects out in the wild -- they already have their libraries -- this really isn't something new.
Is it impossible? Of course not. Am I wrong? 50/50 chance on that. But my experience suggests the odds are that it won't come to fruition.
Challenge extended: Please do prove me wrong.
But, to be blunt--and you know that i ultimately dont mean to be 'gruff'...--i think it was a missed opportunity when OpenDCL decided to create a forum separate of this one (i had just noticed that thread this evening.).
Help me to understand this. Is it not the right and interest of just about any company to want to establish their own web presence? Does MP have a web site or two, does Chuck? Does Keith? Does Craig? Does Autodesk? Does McNeel? Do they have their own forums? Are you boycotting them?
That being said, i do not think that *I* will continue working on a OpenDCL AutoLisp std library.
Does this mean you are 'punishing' the OpenDCL effort? because if it is I must tell you it would be a classic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
OpenDCL is becoming an outstanding product, indeed, with all due respect and kudos to Chad, it's far surpassing it's original architecture and limits. It means significant rich interfaces can be defined, implemented and maintained with very little effort. Owen and the crew have been working very hard to make it a stable and well documented product. Due to the collective momentum and work load Barry may have been a little too concise with his message about the new forum, but there was the genuine attempt to give thanks to, and acknowledgment to the swamp and Mark for his help during the genesis of the product by generously providing forum space. I see no problem or conflict with Owen and crew now desiring a unique presence and board exclusive to the support of their software. Indeed, there is already much confusion between ObjectDCL and OpenDCL, a discrete board will alleviate that confusion. Obviously ObjectDCL discussions would not happen on the new forum, but they wouldn't be discouraged at the swamp -- would they?
I understand your loyalty to the swamp John, it's noble, sincere and admirable, but please consider the possibility that the OpenDCL effort is being performed by ethical, credible professionals; folks that are fueled merely by their interest in supporting the community that was once orphaned by the cessation of the original product. Folks not unlike you. In case you don't know it was the community of ODCL users that begged Owen to take up the effort. Once he reluctantly agreed others followed and took up the cause because the man is an outstanding gentleman, leader and programmer -- in that order.
I will acknowledge that I wouldn't have posted a "Hey, don't post here, post over there" type comment. It could have been phrased more eloquently. Hey, I've had my share of "Dang, could have said that better" moments. You had one maybe?
To close I'll extend this invitation -- Since you are keen to be involved in Open Source efforts I'd ask you to consider helping out the OpenDCL effort by using and testing the product so that any bugs and / or omissions in the documentation can be addressed and remedied. You have your own unique experience and perspective, shame to not benefit from it.
But maybe I'm wrong and ramble for naught ...
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/mp/modesty.gif)
-
Boycott:
No im not boycotting any effort. (To each his own; Im happy if [you] are.)
OpDCL Contrib/Dev:
I dont have anything against any of the developers/contributors in any way. Their efforts are appreciated and i have attempted to map out a ``production project'' using OpDCL i hope to start development on soon. So i most likely will have comments, bug reports, etc then.
Loyalty:
Loyalty aside; do i think it was handled very well? No. (its not very polite to come into someone else's house unannounced and say that the party has moved across the street to better support Bud drinkers.)
Face spite:
I am not punishing anything or anyone. My help will be given to those who ask, but i will not formally contribute. For me to even *hint* that my with-holding my efforts or input on a project will hinder it in any way is absurd! I may have certain skills or experiences but they are in no way special. I am merely a student of AutoLisp. I can only offer ``one of nine ways'' to accomplish a given task.
Building a stdLib:
I have already started my outline, thoughts, `future/plan' outline thing (whatever you call it), notes, criteria, etc. on a standard lib (I even have a few procedures built--and I called Mark this afternoon and asked him if i could use theswamp's CVS-) but it will be for my own use and developed by me.
-
Thanks for responding John.
I'm confused, it sure sounded like you were making a boycott statement but if you say you weren't I'll take you at your word rather than what I understood from your previous post.
If you decide to help the OpenDCL project, directly or indirectly, I know it will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Good luck with your library, if only has but a few authors I've no doubt it will come to fruition.
-
i see that it is about odcl, all my previous comments in this topic were about to the original stdlib by reni urban, just want it to point that... have fun.
-
OK so I've been quietly following this thread and i have a few observations / questions.
First, I use - I guess - what you guys are calling a STDlib: I have "common functions" wrapped in a separate .fas file that gets loaded when a drawing file is opened / created. Some of the things I don't like are when I want to share a specific routine - like an ODCL routine: I have to painstakingly remember where all the lib subs are and try to remember to include them in the shared routine. This is a mess. However, this is offset by the ease of managing these subs in one place!
I don't know if any one here played around with Chad's "SharpLISP" thing, but one of the aspects I found interesting (and correct me, C++ guys, if I'm wrong) was the way in which ARX applications used "Include files". These were files with standard functions defined - .h files I think they were. What I liked is that you still have a central place for common functions, but they got "included" in the separate compiled applications.
So I thought about adopting a similar approach to AutoLISP. Instead of having my common library as a standalone fas file I would "include" the functions I needed for individual routines when I made up my fas projects. Now I know that not being separate namespace, as additional fas files are loaded, the previous defuns will be overwritten: but If they come from the same included file it doesn't matter - right?
So the benefit would that I still have common / shared routines defined in a single location, but compiled routines would be stand-alone. Once Opendcl 4 is released I'm going to restructuring all my routines to take advantage of some of Owens enhancements. I thinking I may incorporate an "include" file type system as well.
So a typical .prj file might look something like: (note the :OWN-LIST atrribute)
;;; VLisp project file [V2.0] jb06 saved to:[S:/jbTools Application/jbTools 2007 v1.2/06 - Detail Manager] at:[7/17/07]
(VLISP-PROJECT-LIST
:NAME
jb06
:OWN-LIST
("S:/jbTools Application/jbTools 2007 v1.2/00 - Common/jbCommonFunctions"
"jb06"
"jb06-00")
:FAS-DIRECTORY
"S:/jbTools2007"
:TMP-DIRECTORY
"\\\\Server\\Data\\Support\\jbTools Application\\jbTools 2007 v1.2\\06 - Detail Manager\\temp"
:PROJECT-KEYS
(:BUILD (:standard) :MERGED T :SAFE-MODE T :MSGLEVEL 1)
:CONTEXT-ID
:AUTOLISP)
;;; EOF