Should Trimble write plugins?
-
re:64 bit
if making sketchup 64 bit will allow sketchup to have real thumbnails with those big beautiful quick look previews then that alone makes me 100% back it..
a whole lot of work for a little bit of joy.. so what
-
I haven't yet gotten the connection between thumbnails and 64bit.
But... Why not just compile SketchUp to 64bit, no matter how disadvantageous and slow it could be, nobody would complain anymore, and SketchUcation discussions would be shorter.
As for UI, ... ... ... and ... ..., ... and ... and there is already the instructor and the LangHander that plugin developers have access to – although it's useless since the
%(#000000)[rbz]installer can't install instructor content or language files (into the Resources folder). I wonder how they want to pull out of the loop without introducing a new extension format%(#000000)[rbz2]. -
Sorry, didn't mean to re-ignite the 32, 64bit debate with my comment.
I was just trying to understand the difference between what's under the hood in the core, and what I put into the gas tank in the form of plugins.
It's hard for me to answer Jeff's original question, "Should Trimble Write Plugins" without understanding the relationship between these two better. -
@dale said:
Sorry, didn't mean to re-ignite the 32, 64bit debate with my comment
See this thread or any of the many others on the same topic.
@dale said:
I was just trying to understand the difference between what's under the hood in the core, and what I put into the gas tank in the form of plugins.
SketchUp's Ruby API exposes a broad range of SketchUp internals and it permits 3rd-party developers to build profoundly powerful extensions to SketchUp's core tool set. With power must come responsibility— it is entirely possible to write extensions which cause crashes and other sorts of general instability in the core SketchUp application.
While most Ruby developers are quite good about testing their code inside SketchUp, the interactions between extensions are almost impossible for anyone to test. Many of you reading this thread probably have dozens of Rubies installed at the same time. There really isn't a good way to ensure that these will all work well together.
You could argue that we should make it impossible for poorly coded Ruby scripts to crash SketchUp. In fact, we do two things in this area. First, we track down developers who have written code that causes crashes that we see in our crash reports— and we help them fix their code. Second, we modify Ruby methods inside SketchUp such that they are harder to crash. The reality is, however, that poorly coded Ruby scripts will always be able to crash SketchUp.
As you heard me say at 3D Basecamp this year (about 35 min in) we are working to bring some order to the chaos of Ruby development. The Ruby API has been a great success from my perspective. I have even studied it academically. I think you'd probably all agree, however, that a little bit more structure wouldn't hurt. You've seen us already launching things that will help.
There's a fine line between the work the SketchUp team does for Ruby developers and the work that those developers do for their user communities. Users love to have new features— but you can't have features without a solid platform underneath. We're all in this together.
john
. -
@aerilius said:
I haven't yet gotten the connection between thumbnails and 64bit.
me neither.. i'm just going off of what i see..
mac have always been 64 bit (at least since i've been using sketchup) and we've never had thumbnails..windows has since gone 64bit and has lost their thumbnails..
so my logic (which could be super skewed here i admit
) deduces that the thumbnails can't be made properly on a 64bit machine with a 32bit app.. -
I am going to interject a non-technical comparison here. As a user and not a developer, when SU crashes (and it does) during native operation, I feel it bears "reporting" and I am due something like an effort by Trimble to improve it... If it crashes while I am using a plugin (and it does), I believe it's my tough luck. With GREAT respect to plugin developers, I don't feel the same responsibility for stability or compatibility exists for plugins as for the core software. While Trimble loves to promote the "3rd party" contributions (and plugins + the API are a wonderful thing about SU), I believe Trimble feels NO responsibility for vetting, guaranteeing, or helping the plugins' performance. I could be wrong.
Edit: After reading subsequent posts, I'd say it would be a good thing if Trimble produced plugins for SU. And I don't wish to give the wrong impression with my adamant words. Sometimes the instability of SU gets to me.
-
@aerilius said:
As for UI, ... ... ... and ... ..., ... and ... and there is already the instructor and the LangHander that plugin developers have access to –
not sure where language and instructors really come into play as far as what i'm talking about regarding UI..
i'm just talking about what it's like for a user to use the plugin.. dunno, i work in bursts then have downtime in bursts.. basically, i use the computer in real world situations using only the knowledge of app i've accumulated up to that point.. but i'm in no mood/position for learning the app at that point or flipping around with it's weirdness.. so in my off time, i talk about the problems/bottlenecks i experience during ontime..
as far as UI.. a lot of the plugins, the developers seem to focus exactly on the issue at hand.. but don't necessarily consider what the user is doing leading up to their usage or afterward.. or how the plugin may flow within the bigger picture..
for instance, look at weld.rb.. it's probably one of the most popular plugins out there but it's got a huge UI flaw..
i mean, if i want to "close curve?", i'll draw a stupid line in there myself.. i have never answered 'yes' to that question --ever.. nor the following question that pops up regardless of what you answered on the first pop up.. if i answered no to the previous question, why in any situation at all, would you now be asking this one?!?"i could draw 5 thousand lines manually in sketchup right now and still not make up for lost time with those stupid questions..
and put those questions up in a fast paced environment and they go beyond being a little annoyance..
there should be an ultimate weld tool by now.. recurve almost does it.. curvizard almost does it.. weld isn't it..
and i know it's possible to make one.. i feel i know how it should work and flow.. and i could probably figure out how to code it myself in ruby but i don't want to..
so then, i'm just the guy sitting around moaning&complaining that "this isn't working how i want it too.. boo hoo"
i get that.. i understand that's what i'm doing..but the way i justify that to myself in my head (be it twisted or not), is that i challenge myself in other ways using the tools.. i am putting in effort with the software -- just not development effort.. but the type of effort which the software is meant for in the first place. user effort.. so i challenge myself with the software and i don't feel so bad about asking others to do the same..
i mean, we've seen a zillion challenges overcome in sketchup via ruby.. that's great.. it shows so many different possibilities etc.. so we keep seeing all these new rubies but you rarely ever see someone going back and refining the interaction.. it's as if "oh.. so that task is accomplished via that ruby.. check".. so maybe the task can be accomplished but what's so wrong with analyzing exactly how the task is being accomplished..
-
There is a lot to say about UI, should we start a new thread (and keep this as Trimble's plugins)?
-
@aerilius said:
There is a lot to say about UI, should we start a new thread (and keep this as Trimble's plugins)?
yeah.. you start it though
i'll just chime inbut it would be nice to see that discussed.. give forum members a chance to interact with some of the developers regarding how it is to actually use some of their plugins.. that said, it would also be nice if the developers first agreed to such things being discussed prior to people pointing out some UI pitfalls..
-
If this thread turns into yet another 64bit discussion I'm invoking Godwin's Law!
-
@thomthom said:
If this thread turns into yet another 64bit discussion I'm invoking Godwin's Law!
you know how it goes though..
"just _ one _ last _ comment... then i'll quit!" not -
@thomthom said:
If this thread turns into yet another 64bit discussion I'm invoking Godwin's Law!
I had to look that up. I wanted to know if it meant being stripped of my credentials and forced to read a confession on Youtube for mentioning "it"
-
128
-
I work on OpenStudio, which includes a SketchUp plugin along with a number of other stand alone applications and an SDK. All of the elements (QT, Swig, Boost, EnergyPlus, Radiance) are 64bit, but we have to package 32 bit as well to support the SketchUp plug-in. I'm told this doubles the size of our installers for Mac and Windows. So our interest in a 64bit SketchUp would be for smaller installers.
-
@davidboulder said:
So our interest in a 64bit SketchUp would be for smaller installers.
i think that's what they (maybe barry from google iirc) said was a big reason for dropping powerPC support on mac (su only runs on intel macs now)... it was that the installer was doubled in size.
so smaller installers is a fair argument
Advertisement