topic Re: Comparing development options in .NET Forum

Comparing development options

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:42:28 GMT

Group,

I really hope this is a constructive discussion and doesn't become a flame war...

With all the different customization options out there (Lisp, .NET, ObjectARX, etc.) its hard to know which is the best choice for a given task. I'm sure that they all have their strengths so let me ask, besides comfort-level and proficiency, what would be a deciding factor in terms of which technology to use?

What can one technology do (.NET) that another can't (LISP) as an example. In other words, what situations MUST you choose a particular technology?

My apologies if this has been asked before; but I wasn't able to find something similar on the newsgroup.

Thanks,

Julie.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:33:30 GMT

Take your pick; a couple dozen possible ways to use your hard earned
acquired talents and skills working with Autodesk's proprietary
implementations of LISP (for grunt production work) or C++ as implemented by
the proprietary ObjectARX (for GUI and data applications) --or-- learn .NET
where there are hundreds if not thousands of categrorical opportunities in
dozens of free markets not hindered by licensed fascism where market demand
for .NET developers is at an all time high and growing like there's going to
be no tomorrow for literally dozens of different application categories from
developing websites to mobile applications on Windows or Linux platforms.

Learn C# and ASP.NET girly girl. You'll also be learning Javascript, CSS and
HTML of course or just stick with C# and go right for the desktop with
Windows Forms or Mobile Applications. Be it HTTP applications using ASP.NET
or Windows Forms on the desktop you need to get into Silverlight and the
Expression Suite as soon as possible and learn all you can about SQL Server
and XML. You can cut your teeth on Autodesk products while continuing to
work as an underpaid grunt and then boogey baby.

You have no idea how good it is going to feel when you discover you are
being offered $35-$45 an hour with benefits for an entry level job coding
with ASP.NET, Windows Forms or Mobile Applications in the open markets where
merit still pays. Use the web to find salary surveys for .NET developers and
you'll see what I mean. Actually, start here at http://reddevnews.com/issue/
and read this month's cover story for inspiration and you'll get clued in.
Maybe then you'll come looking for me at w4m missed connections on
milwaukee.craigslist so I can respond and say I told ya so. I

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/

wrote in message news:5711576@discussion.autodesk.com...
Group,

I really hope this is a constructive discussion and doesn't become a flame
war...

With all the different customization options out there (Lisp, .NET,
ObjectARX, etc.) its hard to know which is the best choice for a given task.
I'm sure that they all have their strengths so let me ask, besides
comfort-level and proficiency, what would be a deciding factor in terms of
which technology to use?

What can one technology do (.NET) that another can't (LISP) as an example.
In other words, what situations MUST you choose a particular technology?

My apologies if this has been asked before; but I wasn't able to find
something similar on the newsgroup.

Thanks,

Julie.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:03:33 GMT

Hi Julie,

The deciding thing is very personal.

For a professional programmer, there is little doubt that Clinton's advice
is spot on. In particular, you are going to want to keep your employment
options open and program across a wide range of fields.

For a 'weekend programmer' who is trying to improve the productivity of
their AutoCAD system, then the learning curve of getting your self capable
of meeting the professional programmer's skill set may mean that you never
actually achieve anything useful. As a single example you can write very
powerful and sophisticated AutoCAD enhancements while still thinking that:

C# is a musical note
ASP.NET is A Smelly Polecat Never Eats Tripe
Javascript is a prescription for making Java coffee.
CSS is a television network
HTML is How To Meet Ladies

:-)

You are most unlikely to start a flame war if you post some more detailed
information on what you actually want to do and the skill set you already
have.

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au
www.civil3Dtools.com

wrote in message news:5711576@discussion.autodesk.com...
Group,

I really hope this is a constructive discussion and doesn't become a flame
war...

With all the different customization options out there (Lisp, .NET,
ObjectARX, etc.) its hard to know which is the best choice for a given task.
I'm sure that they all have their strengths so let me ask, besides
comfort-level and proficiency, what would be a deciding factor in terms of
which technology to use?

What can one technology do (.NET) that another can't (LISP) as an example.
In other words, what situations MUST you choose a particular technology?

My apologies if this has been asked before; but I wasn't able to find
something similar on the newsgroup.

Thanks,

Julie.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:06:30 GMT

C# is a musical note
ASP.NET is A Smelly Polecat Never Eats Tripe
Javascript is a prescription for making Java coffee.
CSS is a television network
HTML is How To Meet Ladies

I liked that. H(ow) T(o) M(eet) L(adies) huh? Cute.

Back to the topic though if I were still a grunt working in a drafting
office and if I had no aspirations in life other than making some boss happy
I would learn AutoLISP as it has a broad range of usefullness for drafting
and minor management tasks in this vendor's AutoCAD product lines noting
"management" is something of a misnomer as this vendor keeps their drafting
products crippled to obstruct, hinder or prevent productive management.

<%= Clinton

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:11:20 GMT

It seems that ObjectARX is required if you want to get into really gut-level programming like creating custom objects. If you don't need that "atomic" level of control then pick a language that you best understand and go for it. You can accomplish most of the same things in the way of results with LISP or VB.NET or C#.NET.

You can approach computer languages like spoken languages.
I use the one that I can best get my point across with. Not necessarily the most elegant or precise language but the one I understand the best.

My LISP is like my spanish. I can communicate in a very VERY limited, simple, crude way so I tend to use either C# or VB for most tasks.

Re: Comparing development options

dgorsman — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:10:17 GMT

Factors to consider:

In-house customization may not always be supported by the same CAD support personnel; people quit, move away, get fired. Few CAD support personnel are hard-core programmers, and many don't even know the basics of .NET. Most CAD support personnel, however, *do* know at least the basics of LISP. Future supportability is key, and leaving behind programs that cannot be maintained by anyone else is bad form.

For professional 3rd party applications development, there really is no excuse for not using ObjectARX/.NET. Professional software companies employ programmers, not CAD support specialists (which is why some software doesn't work exactly as we would like), and they should have the skills to create efficient and robust code that includes proper source code protection (something which is lacking in LISP and VBA).

Speed is also an issue. I'm still learning .NET, but even if I knew it backwards and forwards I would still do the majority of support in LISP or VBA, simply due to the speed of creation and phenomal depth of resources for its use in AutoCAD. Compare the number of LISP entries here with the number of .NET entries.

Available development tools are also an issue. If it comes down to it, I can develop LISP programs on any computer with Notepad. I don't require the .NET framework, any kind of code compiler, not even AutoCAD. In theory, that could be done with say C#, but its much more difficult without the object browser, .NET references, word-completion, and all the other tools the IDE requires for good .NET programming. Also, because of the simplicity of LISP, debugging is much faster and simpler.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:49:27 GMT

I would disagree on at least two points.
Source code protection is actually better in VB (.exe or .dll) than in the .NET languages which require some kind of obfuscation to be protected from disassembly.
Also, your comment: "because of the simplicity of LISP, debugging is much faster and simpler." is a very subjective thing to say. From my point of view debugging LISP code is neither fast nor easy unless you are a very experienced LISP programmer.

Based on what I see at Autodesk University LISP is loosing it's hold as the language of choice. VB(A) is much more common since it can be used in Word, Excel and other products.

Re: Comparing development options

dgorsman — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:39:14 GMT

I say debugging is faster not from experience, but from the simplicity. For example, making a layer current in LISP:

(command ".layer" "set" "LAYER_X1" "")

One line of code, fairly self-explanitory. If I wanted, that could be the entire program, it needs nothing else. Limited possiblities for errors, mostly from mis-spellings. Would you care to provide the equivalent complete code in your favorite .NET language so that I have something to compare with?

I agree that VBA can be used in other programs, and is my langauge of choice when I have to interact with them. If I have to, I can create ActiveX objects in LISP - but again, thats not my first choice.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:27:21 GMT

In VBA - ThisDrawing.SendCommand ".layer set LAYER_X1 "
In .NET - Autodesk.AutoCAD.ApplicationServices.Application.DocumentManager.MdiActiveDocument.SendStringToExecute(".layer set LAYER_X1 ", true, true, true);

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:04:25 GMT

Hi Mark,

For VBA
ThisDrawing.ActiveLayer = "LAYER_X1"

for which you would type:

ThisDrawing.A =
"LAYER_X1"

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au
www.civil3Dtools.com

wrote in message news:5713263@discussion.autodesk.com...
In VBA - ThisDrawing.SendCommand ".layer set LAYER_X1 "
In .NET -
Autodesk.AutoCAD.ApplicationServices.Application.DocumentManager.MdiActiveDocument.SendStringToExecute(".layer
set LAYER_X1 ", true, true, true);

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:16:12 GMT

Thanks Laurie.
I was just trying to fan the flame.
I wanted to use the SendCommand to point out how silly it is to equate sending commands to the command prompt with actual programming.

Re: Comparing development options

dgorsman — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:51:14 GMT

Not entirely true though, is it? For VBA, you need to set that up in a sub/function call. In .NET, there is even more overhead, isn't there? You can't just simply put that string in a file and expect it to work, can you?

Re: Comparing development options

Ed__Jobe — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:08:55 GMT

It seems that you are implying that 'lisp is easier to debug because there's less code'. However, it may be misleading to relate that to debugging itself. That example merely liimits the possible problems. Lisp can have all sorts of other problems, but Lisp has very few tools for debugging compared to Visual Studio or other IDE's. Also, its not always true that lisp is more concise. And my next statement is intended for the OP.

While lisp can do ActiveX, the IDE is not designed for it. That task is better handled by VBA because of Intellisense and other tools. Here, VBA is actually more consise than lisp. As far as other tasks that one language can perform that would force you to use that language, those cases are rare for most people, who are usually not professional developers. Some tasks may be more difficult, but usually there is a workaround to allow you to continue to use your favorite language.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:09:09 GMT

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the physical cost of development To use ARX, you need the Microsoft C++ compiler, and you need a different version of that compiler depending on which version of AutoCAD you are developing for. I got tired of paying to upgrade, so I switched to .NET, which currently is free. Of course VBA and Lisp are free as well, but I prefer C#.

If Microsoft quits offereing the express editions of Visual studiofor free, I will probabbly have to start buiying Visual Studio. I originally started development with ARX back for AutoCAD 2000i, but I didn't want to keep buying the required version of Visual C++.

Re: Comparing development options

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:45:40 GMT

wrote

>> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the
>> physical cost of development.

Perhaps that's because to most professionals,
the cost of the development tool is considered
part of the cost of doing business (representing
a small percentage of the total cost of same
BTW) and hence, doesn't deserve mention.

I would look like a real jerk if I were to make
an issue out of the cost of Visual Studio (a few
hundred bucks a year), while I have customers
paying > $100 USD/hr for professional services.

I don't even cry about the $1000 USD/year I
have to pay for professional liability insurance;
the cost of maintaining software licenses for
AutoCAD, MS Office, and a dozen-or-so others
that I need to maintain current versions of.

I bet the cost of the AutoCAD subscription must
really get your blood boiling, eh?

--
http://www.caddzone.com

AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2008
Supporting AutoCAD 2000 through 2008
http://www.acadxtabs.com