Should Trimble write plugins?
-
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