4 ms·

This is cool but why isn't it software?

by whatshisface 5y ago

TehCorwiz 5y ago
Because then it wouldn’t be as cool.
- thelightherder 5y ago
  Yeah - asking "why wasn't this software" is like asking a painter why they didn't just take a photograph. This is art, folks. TehCorwiz knows what's up. A contraption is always more cool than software.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    It depends on the software. Anyway there's just different ways to create automata. There's no reason why one way is better or worse than others. Painting is no better or worse than photography or sculpture, etc.
  - TehCorwiz 5y ago
    I've thought about simulating it in Blender. Not because it's be cooler. But, because I can't afford nor do I have the time to build such a glorious kinetic sculpture.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
Well often when you build something in the software world we are told not to go learn a new language to build it but just stay with the tools you are a master of, so probably this guy was a master of the tools they chose and hence it was not made as software that would have necessitated learning new tools. However the other thing is that as a system of analog tools it may be able to achieve all sorts of effects that might require a lot of processing power, development time, and sources of entropy for randomization to match. In short I think not just that what was built was easier for the person who built it, but might also be significantly cheaper comparatively. on edit: of course they can't distribute their machine the same way you can code but that's the tradeoff
- thelightherder 5y ago
  Oh - this was not easy, or cheap, that's fer sure. Lots of over anylising here. It's art, ya know?
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    I wasn't saying what you did was easy or cheap, but wondering if it might not be easier for you to have made it this way than programming it, or that despite being expensive to make might it not have been more expensive to build as software and if software would have been able to achieve the same things as easily.
    - thelightherder 5y ago
      I wrote this in the comments below, but - asking why it's not done in software is like asking a painter why they don't just use a camera and take a photograph.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        Ok fair point, but I was answering someone who was probably a software developer or something similar and pointing out that there were also potential 'practical' reasons from the standpoint of software development why this could be considered a more effective way of achieving an end. (as far as if my surmise is correct can't be sure)
        thelightherder 5y ago
        No, I get it. All fair points on your side too. Also - thanks for posting this, much appreciated!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
52-6F-62 5y ago
For the same reasons life continues in the absence of Instagram.
gus_massa 5y ago
I think analog buttons to control rotation, zoom, contrast, ... are more easy to use and tweak until you get a nice image than a slide bar or a number in a form. Probably the monitor to camera part is easier to do in software, but as other comment says the author probably is more familiar with monitor and cameras and understand better how to tweak the values to get nice images.

This is cool but why isn't it software?

TehCorwiz 5y ago

Because then it wouldn’t be as cool.

thelightherder 5y ago
Yeah - asking "why wasn't this software" is like asking a painter why they didn't just take a photograph. This is art, folks. TehCorwiz knows what's up. A contraption is always more cool than software.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  It depends on the software. Anyway there's just different ways to create automata. There's no reason why one way is better or worse than others. Painting is no better or worse than photography or sculpture, etc.
- TehCorwiz 5y ago
  I've thought about simulating it in Blender. Not because it's be cooler. But, because I can't afford nor do I have the time to build such a glorious kinetic sculpture.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

Well often when you build something in the software world we are told not to go learn a new language to build it but just stay with the tools you are a master of, so probably this guy was a master of the tools they chose and hence it was not made as software that would have necessitated learning new tools. However the other thing is that as a system of analog tools it may be able to achieve all sorts of effects that might require a lot of processing power, development time, and sources of entropy for randomization to match. In short I think not just that what was built was easier for the person who built it, but might also be significantly cheaper comparatively. on edit: of course they can't distribute their machine the same way you can code but that's the tradeoff

thelightherder 5y ago
Oh - this was not easy, or cheap, that's fer sure. Lots of over anylising here. It's art, ya know?
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I wasn't saying what you did was easy or cheap, but wondering if it might not be easier for you to have made it this way than programming it, or that despite being expensive to make might it not have been more expensive to build as software and if software would have been able to achieve the same things as easily.
  - thelightherder 5y ago
    I wrote this in the comments below, but - asking why it's not done in software is like asking a painter why they don't just use a camera and take a photograph.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      Ok fair point, but I was answering someone who was probably a software developer or something similar and pointing out that there were also potential 'practical' reasons from the standpoint of software development why this could be considered a more effective way of achieving an end. (as far as if my surmise is correct can't be sure)
      - thelightherder 5y ago
        No, I get it. All fair points on your side too. Also - thanks for posting this, much appreciated!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

52-6F-62 5y ago

For the same reasons life continues in the absence of Instagram.

gus_massa 5y ago

I think analog buttons to control rotation, zoom, contrast, ... are more easy to use and tweak until you get a nice image than a slide bar or a number in a form. Probably the monitor to camera part is easier to do in software, but as other comment says the author probably is more familiar with monitor and cameras and understand better how to tweak the values to get nice images.