Visual LISP, AutoLISP and General Customization
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Why does Autodesk ignores the LISP community?

44 REPLIES 44
Reply
Message 1 of 45
JeremyD
904 Views, 44 Replies

Why does Autodesk ignores the LISP community?

I find it puzzling that Autodesk seems to want to beat us away from LISP with a stick. They purposely do not improve it because they know many of us will take advantage and ignore VBA. They made a tactical error in giving us the VL functions because then we wrote active-X lisp function libraries to avoid wasting our time with VBA. We bought ObjectDCL so that we were no longer hampered by the lack of dialog support. Right now the majority of programmers on AutoCAD are still using AutoLISP and yet Autodesk seems to remain clueless to this phenomenum. When are they going to wake up to the fact that a typical LISP program is half the lines of code of a VBA program? Does anyone else out there feel that they are being railroaded down a path that they don't want to go on? Why does Autodesk ignore the majority of its working programmers and continually frustrate the direction they want to go in? I have nothing against VBA support, just listen to me once in a while guys? Just because Microsoft pushes VBA doesn't mean it's a wonderful language. Python or Ruby would be far better to base AutoCAD on than VBA.
44 REPLIES 44
Message 2 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

I have found that VB is much easier to work with than lisp. Although I must admit that there are still times when lisp is better for certain applications but usually I've found that VB has been easier and more effective in most cases. I do wish the documentation for VL was better, as I said there are still many uses for VL. Just my 2¢ worth. -- JeremyD wrote: > I find it puzzling that Autodesk seems to want to beat us away from LISP with a stick. They purposely do not improve it because they know many of us will take advantage and ignore VBA. They made a tactical error in giving us the VL functions because then we wrote active-X lisp function libraries to avoid wasting our time with VBA. We bought ObjectDCL so that we were no longer hampered by the lack of dialog support. Right now the majority of programmers on AutoCAD are still using AutoLISP and yet Autodesk seems to remain clueless to this phenomenum. When are they going to wake up to the fact that a typical LISP program is half the lines of code of a VBA program? Does anyone else out there feel that they are being railroaded down a path that they don't want to go on? Why does Autodesk ignore the majority of its working programmers and continually frustrate the direction they want to go in? I have nothing against VBA support, just listen to me once in a while guys? Just because Microsoft pushes VBA doesn't mean it's a wonderful language. Python or Ruby would be far better to base AutoCAD on than VBA.
Message 3 of 45
siarnne
in reply to: JeremyD

There's no indication that Autodesk is going to discontinue support for lisp. it'll probably be there with the command line for as long as they make AutoCAD. Which is great for me, because I like to research my lisp at the command line.
-Vbarun just doesn't have the same expediency.
On the other hand, I can see why Autodesk isn't falling over themselves to make visual DCL, Visual DIESEL. AutoLISP is a proprietary subset of CommonLISP which is almost non-existent in desktop apps.
Now, indentation, format control and color schemes in VLIDE are each about a thousand times better than the VBAIDE. But once you get past forward declaration, VBA's pretty easy to learn and it hooks nicely into other apps like word, Excel and ADO.net
CAD Naked
John
Message 4 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

Hi Jeremy, Autodesk are not spending much time improving lisp, but they are certainly not beating you away from it. In their wisdom they believe that other programming languages provide more power to the developer and they spend their time providing access to the new tools. Which tool you use is up to you. Number of lines of code is hardly a measure of quality of a language. Nor on modern computers for most users of most functions is speed an issue. The real question is what method gives YOU the output YOU want for the least overall time investment. For me coding in VBA is far easier to debug and that makes VBA a preferable vehicle for me. I don't program in Lisp, but could not live without it as I make serious use of it in driving menus via the MNL file. If Python and Ruby have ActiveX and are better why not use them ? Autodesk in general are recommending C# as the best language for future customisation. Another question. Why are you frustrated ? What direction do you want to go in ? -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "JeremyD" wrote in message news:30582830.1093372584070.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > I find it puzzling that Autodesk seems to want to beat us away from LISP with a stick. They purposely do not improve it because they know many of us will take advantage and ignore VBA. They made a tactical error in giving us the VL functions because then we wrote active-X lisp function libraries to avoid wasting our time with VBA. We bought ObjectDCL so that we were no longer hampered by the lack of dialog support. Right now the majority of programmers on AutoCAD are still using AutoLISP and yet Autodesk seems to remain clueless to this phenomenum. When are they going to wake up to the fact that a typical LISP program is half the lines of code of a VBA program? Does anyone else out there feel that they are being railroaded down a path that they don't want to go on? Why does Autodesk ignore the majority of its working programmers and continually frustrate the direction they want to go in? I have nothing against VBA support, just listen to me once in a while guys? Just because Microsoft pushes VBA doesn't mean it's a wonderful language. Python or Ruby would be far better to base AutoCAD on than VBA.
Message 5 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

Wait a minute, I would say Autodesk understands that Lisp is used in at least 1/2 the prorgams written. While they have no provided something like ObjectDcl, they did make it an activex compatible language. They continue to support the language and provide an moderate these newsgroups. You can get help with lisp through the ADN. True, they have not improved the VLIDE much, I work in that IDE like three hours a day at least and definately have some suggestions I'd like to see done. How about bookmarks that work, and get rid of the stupid console window that pops up every time you load the code or stop a debug run, annoying as heck, maybe a variable localizer too like Lisplink has. Honestly, I worry a little bit about them modifying the autolisp language, do we want them changing things if they do not have a team dedicated to running down bugs? As long as you use ObjectDcl, you can do so much with lisp it is just amazing. I can hardly think of a program I cannot write in lisp. I can do them in VB or VBA too, but the lack of easy a-la-carte command line access for VB and VBA forces workarounds that waste time (but actually teach you a lot...). I do switch to VB for database progs though that use ADO. I sure like the way VB structures its code, I try to mimic it in lisp. The ObjectDcl makes it possible because the callback functions are separate and clean, not part of some loop like in DCL... What specific things is Adesk doing to push us from Lisp besides not developing it further? Just because they are trying to get other languages up to the power of lisp doesn't mean they are dropping it. thanks JeremyD |>I find it puzzling that Autodesk seems to want to beat us away from LISP with a stick. They purposely do not improve it because they know many of us will take advantage and ignore VBA. They made a tactical error in giving us the VL functions because then we wrote active-X lisp function libraries to avoid wasting our time with VBA. We bought ObjectDCL so that we were no longer hampered by the lack of dialog support. Right now the majority of programmers on AutoCAD are still using AutoLISP and yet Autodesk seems to remain clueless to this phenomenum. When are they going to wake up to the fact that a typical LISP program is half the lines of code of a VBA program? Does anyone else out there feel that they are being railroaded down a path that they don't want to go on? Why does Autodesk ignore the majority of its working programmers and continually frustrate the direction they want to go in? I have nothing against VBA support, just listen to me once in a while guys? Just because |>Microsoft pushes VBA doesn't mean it's a wonderful language. Python or Ruby would be far better to base AutoCAD on than VBA. James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 6 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

wow, if Adesk really wants people to use C to do customization, they are worse off than I thought. It's not the case though. I think what you mean is the premium language is C#, then use Lisp or VB or any simplified activex language for the less serious programming. I agree with your other comments though. Lisp is an odd animal, but it has the power to adapt to various situations that is unmatched. Fun time to be doing customization I think. "Laurie Comerford" |>Hi Jeremy, |> |>Autodesk are not spending much time improving lisp, but they are certainly |>not beating you away from it. |> |>In their wisdom they believe that other programming languages provide more |>power to the developer and they spend their time providing access to the new |>tools. |> |>Which tool you use is up to you. |> |>Number of lines of code is hardly a measure of quality of a language. Nor |>on modern computers for most users of most functions is speed an issue. |> |>The real question is what method gives YOU the output YOU want for the least |>overall time investment. |> |>For me coding in VBA is far easier to debug and that makes VBA a preferable |>vehicle for me. |>I don't program in Lisp, but could not live without it as I make serious use |>of it in driving menus via the MNL file. |> |>If Python and Ruby have ActiveX and are better why not use them ? |> |>Autodesk in general are recommending C# as the best language for future |>customisation. |> |>Another question. Why are you frustrated ? What direction do you want to |>go in ? James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 7 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

Hi, Thanks James, although I did say C#, not C. We often type things in a hurry without fully understanding how others will read our words. I can't conceive that a casual customiser will learn C#. Let's face it, you get the maximum return for the least effort by customising the menus. My favourite thought is that you should never draw a line, rather you should draw an object, hence in the Civil world you would have something like: DrawCL [Draw centreline]^C^C^C-layer;m;Centrelines;c;yellow;;l;center;;pl; DrawKerb [Draw kerb]^C^C^C-layer;m;Kerbs;c;red;;pl; etc. -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "James Maeding" wrote in message news:50cni0d08utbaisparo8mf3dt034ns5p0h@4ax.com... > wow, if Adesk really wants people to use C to do customization, they are worse off than I thought. It's not the case > though. > I think what you mean is the premium language is C#, then use Lisp or VB or any simplified activex language for the less > serious programming. > > I agree with your other comments though. Lisp is an odd animal, but it has the power to adapt to various situations > that is unmatched. Fun time to be doing customization I think. > > "Laurie Comerford" > |>Hi Jeremy, > |> > |>Autodesk are not spending much time improving lisp, but they are certainly > |>not beating you away from it. > |> > |>In their wisdom they believe that other programming languages provide more > |>power to the developer and they spend their time providing access to the new > |>tools. > |> > |>Which tool you use is up to you. > |> > |>Number of lines of code is hardly a measure of quality of a language. Nor > |>on modern computers for most users of most functions is speed an issue. > |> > |>The real question is what method gives YOU the output YOU want for the least > |>overall time investment. > |> > |>For me coding in VBA is far easier to debug and that makes VBA a preferable > |>vehicle for me. > |>I don't program in Lisp, but could not live without it as I make serious use > |>of it in driving menus via the MNL file. > |> > |>If Python and Ruby have ActiveX and are better why not use them ? > |> > |>Autodesk in general are recommending C# as the best language for future > |>customisation. > |> > |>Another question. Why are you frustrated ? What direction do you want to > |>go in ? > > James Maeding > Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 8 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

James, VERY well put. I don't think Chad gets the community (or financial) praise for ObjectDCL he honestly deserves. (disclamer: I'm not associated with 3rd day software - only an adament user! 🙂 ) jb
Message 9 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

no kidding, I would buy his software even at 2 grand a seat (its like $300 for those that don't know...), its everything to my programing efforts. I wish he sold stock. "j.buzbee" |>James, VERY well put. |> |>I don't think Chad gets the community (or financial) praise for ObjectDCL he |>honestly deserves. (disclamer: I'm not associated with 3rd day software - |>only an adament user! 🙂 ) |> |>jb |> James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 10 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

AutoLisp is also quite useful from a drafter's point as it is quite easy to create shortcuts, short routines, etc at the command line without having to compile, etc. The math functions, being able to set a point variable, selection-set variable, etc are quite easy and quick and do not require much of a programming skill level to get started. "JeremyD" wrote in message news:30582830.1093372584070.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > I find it puzzling that Autodesk seems to want to beat us away from LISP with a stick. They purposely do not improve it because they know many of us will take advantage and ignore VBA. They made a tactical error in giving us the VL functions because then we wrote active-X lisp function libraries to avoid wasting our time with VBA. We bought ObjectDCL so that we were no longer hampered by the lack of dialog support. Right now the majority of programmers on AutoCAD are still using AutoLISP and yet Autodesk seems to remain clueless to this phenomenum. When are they going to wake up to the fact that a typical LISP program is half the lines of code of a VBA program? Does anyone else out there feel that they are being railroaded down a path that they don't want to go on? Why does Autodesk ignore the majority of its working programmers and continually frustrate the direction they want to go in? I have nothing against VBA support, just listen to me once in a while guys? Just because Microsoft pushes VBA doesn't mean it's a wonderful language. Python or Ruby would be far better to base AutoCAD on than VBA.
Message 11 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

hmm, that is a great thought. I need to do that more, Its just hard to address every situation. I'll think on that some more, the other offices of H&A have done this a fair amount. Maybe the tool palettes play into this too, there has to be a reason to do palettes as opposed to toolbars. I guess they collapse and also have better thunmbnails than toolbars. thx "Laurie Comerford" |>Hi, |> |>Thanks James, although I did say C#, not C. We often type things in a hurry |>without fully understanding how others will read our words. |> |>I can't conceive that a casual customiser will learn C#. |> |>Let's face it, you get the maximum return for the least effort by |>customising the menus. |> |>My favourite thought is that you should never draw a line, rather you should |>draw an object, hence in the Civil world you would have something like: |> |>DrawCL [Draw |>centreline]^C^C^C-layer;m;Centrelines;c;yellow;;l;center;;pl; |>DrawKerb [Draw kerb]^C^C^C-layer;m;Kerbs;c;red;;pl; |> |>etc. James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 12 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

On 8/24/2004 5:00 PM James Maeding wrote: > no kidding, I would buy his software even at 2 grand a seat (its like > $300 for those that don't know...), its everything to my programing > efforts... Does that include the source code?
Message 13 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

Have you tried ObjectDcl? Its a Lisper's dream. Now let me adjust my taped black framed glasses and put my pen back in its pocket protecter . Maybe I need to get out more, but its really the best thing to happen to lisp in a long time. I bet I save 5 hours a week due to the ease of use compared to normal dcl. Thats about $2k a month at my companies billing rate. The fact is I can do just about anything I want to and I dont have to deal with the limitations of VBA and VB. Again, I love the structure of VB/VBA and use it for my home grown block manager, tool manager, vertical curve calculator, and meetings signup programs, but not for progs that have to draw a lot of stuff and gather data from the drawing and command line. Specialized programs are very costly in other industries but the best AutoCad programmers get pennies for their achievments. So yes, I am a Chad fan for sure. I'd love to show others how to use the ODCL too. I wish there was an ODCL group in these newsgroups. "R.K. McSwain" |>On 8/24/2004 5:00 PM James Maeding wrote: |> |>> no kidding, I would buy his software even at 2 grand a seat (its like |>> $300 for those that don't know...), its everything to my programing |>> efforts... |> |> |>Does that include the source code? James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 14 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

siarnne wrote: > On the other hand, I can see why Autodesk isn't falling over themselves > to make visual DCL, Visual DIESEL. > AutoLISP is a proprietary subset of CommonLISP which is almost non-existent > in desktop apps. Strictly speaking, this is incorrect: AutoLISP is far more like old pre-Common Lisp implementations (originated as XLISP), the closest relative would probably be MACLISP; it has several things which are not compatible with CL, so it can't be regarded as a subset. It lacks most of CL's powerful parts; for comparision, when AutoLisp still had a printed manual, it was about 60 pages. The index for Steele's "Common Lisp: the language", 2nd edition, is 60 pages, the whole book is about 1000 pages. The official Common Lisp standard would be about 1500 pages. Historically this is understandable, as way back in early 1980's when AutoLisp was introduced, running a full-size Lisp at bearable speed took a Symbolics Lisp Machine which cost about 100 000 $. The PC I am writing this on is about 500 times faster than a Symbolics 3650, so these days there is no problem using a full-size Common Lisp on commodity machines. The most intelligent thing AutoDesk could do regarding AutoLisp/VisualLisp would be to throw it away and replace it with a full-size CL from one of the commercial vendors, with a compatibility package to allow old AutoLisp code to run. - Whether this is politically possible is another question. --
Message 15 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

interesting, I like that idea. We still need command line interpretation though... Martti Halminen |>siarnne wrote: |> |>> On the other hand, I can see why Autodesk isn't falling over themselves |> |>> to make visual DCL, Visual DIESEL. |> |>> AutoLISP is a proprietary subset of CommonLISP which is almost non-existent |> |>> in desktop apps. |> |> |>Strictly speaking, this is incorrect: AutoLISP is far more like old |>pre-Common Lisp implementations (originated as XLISP), the closest |>relative would probably be MACLISP; it has several things which are not |>compatible with CL, so it can't be regarded as a subset. It lacks most |>of CL's powerful parts; for comparision, when AutoLisp still had a |>printed manual, it was about 60 pages. The index for Steele's "Common |>Lisp: the language", 2nd edition, is 60 pages, the whole book is about |>1000 pages. The official Common Lisp standard would be about 1500 pages. |> |>Historically this is understandable, as way back in early 1980's when |>AutoLisp was introduced, running a full-size Lisp at bearable speed took |>a Symbolics Lisp Machine which cost about 100 000 $. The PC I am writing |>this on is about 500 times faster than a Symbolics 3650, so these days |>there is no problem using a full-size Common Lisp on commodity machines. |> |>The most intelligent thing AutoDesk could do regarding |>AutoLisp/VisualLisp would be to throw it away and replace it with a |>full-size CL from one of the commercial vendors, with a compatibility |>package to allow old AutoLisp code to run. |> |>- Whether this is politically possible is another question. James Maeding Civil Engineer/Programmer
Message 16 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

James Maeding wrote: > Maybe I need to get out more, but its really the best > thing to happen to lisp in a long time. And what happens when the ARX spec changes yet again in a future AutoCAD making it incompatible, and the authors decide it hasn'nt been profitable enough to continue? Isn't this why Tony quit doing AcadX? Terry
Message 17 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

I've tried it, and find it very confusing to be honest. Haven't been able to complete a single simple project with it as of yet. Perhaps I am just not smart enough to figure it out. "James Maeding" wrote in message news:seeoi0t56r24jolb1mrsjgocfjumjti5j9@4ax.com... > Have you tried ObjectDcl? Its a Lisper's dream.
Message 18 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

"James Maeding" wrote... > Have you tried ObjectDcl? Its a Lisper's dream.... Hmmm. I did not see an answer in there. I'm guessing that you do not get the source code. My point was the same as Terry's What happens to all your applications that depend on ObjectDCL if you do not have (and cannot get) a current version of it? I'm not knocking the usefulness of the product, just thinking down the road....
Message 19 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

"Terry W. Dotson" wrote > > And what happens when the ARX spec changes yet again in a future AutoCAD > making it incompatible, and the authors decide it hasn'nt been profitable > enough to continue? > > Isn't this why Tony quit doing AcadX? Not entirely. The cost of updating was only one aspect. The other is that there was not enough potential sales to support the effort required to produce comprehensive documentation. Selling software to programmers is not a good proposition. -- http://www.caddzone.com AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2004/2005 http://www.acadxtabs.com
Message 20 of 45
Anonymous
in reply to: JeremyD

ODCL uses an arx file to house its methods. The arx for 2005 came out very promptly. Be careful looking down the road. It's true that there's never a guarantee that a product will be updated. It's also true that ODCL provides a lot of extra capability and cuts development time. Only you can decide whether the benefit outweighs the risk for you with what you do with AutoCad. Martin R.K. McSwain wrote: > "James Maeding" wrote... > >>Have you tried ObjectDcl? Its a Lisper's dream.... > > > > Hmmm. I did not see an answer in there. I'm guessing that you do not get the source code. > > My point was the same as Terry's > > What happens to all your applications that depend on ObjectDCL if you do not have (and cannot get) a current version of it? > > I'm not knocking the usefulness of the product, just thinking down the road....

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost