4 ms·

Curious, what do you dislike about it? I used it for a project recently and found it to be really nice and expressive. I love that it's got a functional feel

Curious, what do you dislike about it? I used it for a project recently and found it to be really nice and expressive. I love that it's got a functional feel but you can do loops and compose modules in a really powerful way.

derekp7 7y ago
For me, the syntax is ok, however it doesn't always do what you expect. For example: if (some_condition) { x = 2; } x doesn't get set to 2. Or even better, this: x = 2; echo("x = ", x); x = 5; This prints out that x = 5.
- iamwil 7y ago
  It should technically throw an error before compiling. You're thinking about it as an imperative language, when it aspires to be declarative.
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    Personally I think that's a bug, not a feature. If the language aspires to be declarative, but features imperative constructs, it should have a syntax that reflects the distinction. I work with these kinds of things a lot, having that clear divide between declarative and imperative operations on whatever being expressed isn't only easier to learn and read, it's far more expressive and powerful for complex systems.
    - iamwil 7y ago
      You misinterpret--or rather, I wasn't clear. While I say it aspires, I'm not saying it's a good choice. I'm just saying its odd behavior makes a lot more sense once you know it's meant to be declarative, and you can make a lot more headway when working with it.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  It is not an imperative language even though it is dressed up like one. You are describing a data structure, not a sequence of operations.
ptero 7y ago
I used OpenScad a few years ago and was also initially horrified by the language until someone pointed to me the "nightly build" versions which supported the functional feel and compositions that I think you are describing. Those made a world of difference for me. I wonder if the parent is referring to a really old version (many Linux distributions still ship those). Just a guess.
- h2odragon 7y ago
  Yes. I built a project using the 2015 release. ugh. https://github.com/h2odragon/MarksEnclosureHelper https://github.com/h2odragon/MarksEnclosureHelper
- radarsat1 7y ago
  Ah that might explain it. I picked it up recently from scratch using the nightly build (via snap) so I'm not aware of the history of the language.
  - ptero 7y ago
    The old version language was bad to the extent that after playing with the tool for a few hours my thought was "why did you cripple such a good idea with such a bad language"??? I seriously considered digging out the Dragon Book to write a better language front end to it.
rubenbe 7y ago
The syntax looks like C but it's not, and causes bugs, e.g. in this loop: i =0; for (j = [1:5]){ echo(i); i=i+1; } keeps printing "1" instead of 0 to 4
ajnin 7y ago
Not OP, but : - you can't store objects in variables, so code looks convoluted with deep nesting as you need to apply multiple transforms to objects - there are no real variables, more like constants that take the value of the last assignment, so you can't do basic stuff like x = min(x, 5) - you can't access object attributes (size, etc.) so it's not possible to generate features that depend on another object. You always need to have lots of parameters in scope. A simple use case would be to punch 4 holes in the corners of a box cover. - string functions are very limited, there is only str() to convert a value to string but with no control on the formatting, there is no printf-equivalent
- heretoo 7y ago
  I'm able to do some of these things. Someone else said that perhaps the nightly build is different? ``` module thing(x) { cylinder(r=x,h=10); } translate([10,0,0]) thing(5); x = min(4,2) + 1; translate([-10,0,0]) thing(x); ``` works for me.
- radarsat1 7y ago
  Your third and fourth points are good ones. I think the first two points are mitigated by using functions and modules correctly.

derekp7 7y ago

For me, the syntax is ok, however it doesn't always do what you expect. For example: if (some_condition) { x = 2; } x doesn't get set to 2. Or even better, this: x = 2; echo("x = ", x); x = 5; This prints out that x = 5.

iamwil 7y ago
It should technically throw an error before compiling. You're thinking about it as an imperative language, when it aspires to be declarative.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  Personally I think that's a bug, not a feature. If the language aspires to be declarative, but features imperative constructs, it should have a syntax that reflects the distinction. I work with these kinds of things a lot, having that clear divide between declarative and imperative operations on whatever being expressed isn't only easier to learn and read, it's far more expressive and powerful for complex systems.
  - iamwil 7y ago
    You misinterpret--or rather, I wasn't clear. While I say it aspires, I'm not saying it's a good choice. I'm just saying its odd behavior makes a lot more sense once you know it's meant to be declarative, and you can make a lot more headway when working with it.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
It is not an imperative language even though it is dressed up like one. You are describing a data structure, not a sequence of operations.

ptero 7y ago

I used OpenScad a few years ago and was also initially horrified by the language until someone pointed to me the "nightly build" versions which supported the functional feel and compositions that I think you are describing. Those made a world of difference for me. I wonder if the parent is referring to a really old version (many Linux distributions still ship those). Just a guess.

h2odragon 7y ago
Yes. I built a project using the 2015 release. ugh. https://github.com/h2odragon/MarksEnclosureHelper https://github.com/h2odragon/MarksEnclosureHelper
radarsat1 7y ago
Ah that might explain it. I picked it up recently from scratch using the nightly build (via snap) so I'm not aware of the history of the language.
- ptero 7y ago
  The old version language was bad to the extent that after playing with the tool for a few hours my thought was "why did you cripple such a good idea with such a bad language"??? I seriously considered digging out the Dragon Book to write a better language front end to it.

rubenbe 7y ago

The syntax looks like C but it's not, and causes bugs, e.g. in this loop: i =0; for (j = [1:5]){ echo(i); i=i+1; } keeps printing "1" instead of 0 to 4

ajnin 7y ago

Not OP, but : - you can't store objects in variables, so code looks convoluted with deep nesting as you need to apply multiple transforms to objects - there are no real variables, more like constants that take the value of the last assignment, so you can't do basic stuff like x = min(x, 5) - you can't access object attributes (size, etc.) so it's not possible to generate features that depend on another object. You always need to have lots of parameters in scope. A simple use case would be to punch 4 holes in the corners of a box cover. - string functions are very limited, there is only str() to convert a value to string but with no control on the formatting, there is no printf-equivalent

heretoo 7y ago
I'm able to do some of these things. Someone else said that perhaps the nightly build is different? ``` module thing(x) { cylinder(r=x,h=10); } translate([10,0,0]) thing(5); x = min(4,2) + 1; translate([-10,0,0]) thing(x); ``` works for me.
radarsat1 7y ago
Your third and fourth points are good ones. I think the first two points are mitigated by using functions and modules correctly.