3 ms·
If the options are to hook up to GPL-3 or pay ODA quite few software products probably go the ODA way still. ODA has quite a large development org to support th
by fsloth 6y ago
If the options are to hook up to GPL-3 or pay ODA quite few software products probably go the ODA way still. ODA has quite a large development org to support their stack. I presume if maximum feature parity with DXF was a requirement then ODA would still win.
Open source is really great for innovation. I don't see much innovation or excitement in reverse engineering a stone-age proprietary black-box format.
It would be much better if those efforts were spent in an open source data interchange format.
- rurban 6y agoDXF is a too stupid and irregular format, JSON is much more regular and easier to read and write. There are several open source alternative formats, but I never warmed up to them. They look very overarchitectured, like XML. But maybe I'll have to do some IFC converters later. With all the constraints, dynamic blocks, mesh and solid formats it's very diverse, and Acad's new constraints system is extremely baroque and undocumented. A big C++ mess. Dynblocks and meshes also. ACIS is extremely nice though. I recently reverse engineered their new ShapeManager format, which is just binary ACIS (SAB) plus history (ACSH).