Why does Autodesk ignores the LISP community?

[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.

[Anonymous]

It would be great if you'd release the code. The more examples, the better, especially when they're "real world". Martin Joel Roderick wrote: > Jason, > I put a copy of the paper here: > www.globaldialog.com\~jroderick\CP21-3.zip > > The c: issue is explained in the help file: > "There are two similar styles that can be used to program AutoLisp code to > handle the ObjectDCL events. But first, to answer a question some of you > may have, you will notice that ObjectDCL calls its events as C:xxx defun'd > functions. This is done because of the limitation ObjectARX imposes on > mechanisms to call AutoLisp functions from some ObjectARX dialog boxes. > Rather then setup ObjectDCL to defun some events as C:xxx and others as xxx, > C:xxx is used as the standard. The first programming style defines all the > event defun's inside the main defun. This allows the program to be created > free of global variables. The second style allows global variables to be > used instead to organize information between the main defun and the event > defun's." > > If you look at my example in the AU paper, I actually localize the event > c:defuns. I tend to be anal about stuff like this ;) > > When I was doing the CDG thing, I used ObjectDCL for CDGPurge. Since I have > dropped the website I have been thinking of just releasing the code as an > ObjectDCL example and letting people have fun with it. > > HTH, > Joel > > > > > "Jason Piercey" wrote in message > news:412e48be_1@newsprd01... > >>Hi Joel, >> >>I'd like to take a look at it, if you don't mind. >> >>Off the top of my head, some trouble I had with it >>was lack of documentation, and why on earth you >>need *all* of your functions defined like a command >>(with the c: prefix) That just doesn't make any >>sense to me. >> >>Thanks for the offer. >> >>-- >>Autodesk Discussion Group Facilitator >> >> >>"Joel Roderick" wrote in message >>news:412e4453_1@newsprd01... >> >>>Jason, >>>You may find the AU class material I did to be useful. It walks you >> >>through >> >>>step by step on creating a project. Not sure if they still have them up >> >>on >> >>>the website, so if you need it, let me know. >>> >>>Joel Roderick >> >> > >

[diagodose2009]

Your question: Autodesk ignores the LISP community ?
But my question :Why does the LISP_community ignore the language C++LISP?
MyAnswer: i can not understand...........

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

Diagodose, No disrespect intended, but I think no one here in this forum cares for what you are peddling.  Keep your C++ lisp in the classifieds, maybe someone there cares.

[stevor]

Perhaps Diag was wasjust demonstrating the very reason, in a very subtle way: Autodesk has endeavored to divert attention away from autolisp, towards methods that can provide further income, to Autodesk. As John Walker commented two decades ago, the autodesk team did not have the amount of time or knowledge to make all the various 'tools' that the established CAD providers had, so integrated 'arcane' Lisp into the autocad, in 1986. Then ambitious users could do CAD, for far less money. For years it allowed faster 'work' and extended capabilities, allowing more, much more; maybe too much. Either way Diag, very, very subtle.

[hgasty1001]

Hi,

May be you need to make a better effort in "marketing", better communication, better redaction and explanations to the answers you post here,  posting some good documention, examples. Posting under a real name also should help.

I think that no body will care about a new programming language without a good reason to do it: better and easier sintaxis, performance improvements, a modern IDE (which AutoLISP has not), community support,  etc.

So, evaluate honestly if you have any hope to succeed trying to introduce a new programming language to the AutoCAD developers community. If you are trying to make money with this, please say it cristal clear, if you not, may be going to open source it's an alternative.

Regards,

Gaston Nunez