Author Topic: STDLib  (Read 15205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 17750
  • Have thousands of dwgs to process? Contact me.
Re: STDLib
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2007, 02:02:20 PM »
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.

Highly coupled.

Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.
Engineering Technologist • CAD Automation Practitioner
Automation ▸ Design ▸ Drafting ▸ Document Control ▸ Client
cadanalyst@gmail.comhttp://cadanalyst.slack.comhttp://linkedin.com/in/cadanalyst

Maverick®

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14778
Re: STDLib
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2007, 02:04:20 PM »
Highly coupled

Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.

In a thread titled STDLib?

Whodathunk?

John Kaul (Se7en)

  • Administrator
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 9667
Re: STDLib
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2007, 03:02:50 PM »
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.

Highly coupled.

Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.

Sounds good to me.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Donate to TheSwamp.org

It's Alive!

  • Retired
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7060
  • AKA Daniel
Re: STDLib
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2007, 09:16:34 PM »
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?
Retired

LE

  • Guest
Re: STDLib
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2007, 10:14:57 PM »
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.

It's Alive!

  • Retired
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7060
  • AKA Daniel
Re: STDLib
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2007, 11:41:14 PM »
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
Retired

John Kaul (Se7en)

  • Administrator
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 9667
Re: STDLib
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2007, 08:21:28 AM »
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.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Donate to TheSwamp.org

Guest

  • Guest
Re: STDLib
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2007, 09:34:22 AM »
its very ... what the word? ... dependent. Every function depends on another.

Highly coupled.

Don't go there Dent / Greg / Matt.

What???  I just got here... I've been out for the past two days.

It's Alive!

  • Retired
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7060
  • AKA Daniel
Re: STDLib
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2007, 10:33:52 AM »
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


Retired

LE

  • Guest
Re: STDLib
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2007, 10:55:34 AM »
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!
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 10:57:40 AM by LE »

John Kaul (Se7en)

  • Administrator
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 9667
Re: STDLib
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2007, 11:49:24 AM »
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.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Donate to TheSwamp.org

It's Alive!

  • Retired
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7060
  • AKA Daniel
Re: STDLib
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2007, 01:20:43 PM »
Exactly!!

Quote
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

Retired

John Kaul (Se7en)

  • Administrator
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 9667
Re: STDLib
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2007, 02:15:44 PM »
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'.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Donate to TheSwamp.org

LE

  • Guest
Re: STDLib
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2007, 02:36:22 PM »
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 Alive!

  • Retired
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7060
  • AKA Daniel
Re: STDLib
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2007, 03:12:15 PM »
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
Retired