Master wrote:
That where the parametric and visual qualities of GDL come into play. An architect just has to open an object, put in his values (preferably in an nice UserInterface) and done.
Now these objects can be made by object developers. I feel that architects are reluctant to buy objects from developers and I want to make it easier and saver for architects to call in their help. That why I see a necessity for registering ArchiCAD object developer.

I wasn't missing your point ... i just chose to address what i think is the bigger problem with GDL and that is its user-friendliness.

I do support what you are trying to do - increase the number of quality GDL objects out there, and provide a central point of availability - but the sticking point is 'Registered Developer' with Graphisoft. This just sounds like another revenue stream for Graphisoft that will not necessarily have many real benefits - e.g there would need to be a major improvement in the tools, training and documentation for GDL. Just look at the Graphisoft Registered Consultants program .. not exactly a shining beacon of success and for good reason - no value for money.

Master wrote:
Ofcourse when making objects is easier, prices can be lowered.

This is what i was getting at. Graphisoft needs to make object creation more accessible, i.e easier. Doing so will massively widen the pool of people able to and interested in creating objects. Document some robust object creation standards (Graphisofts Lib Dev guide is lacking) and decent training material for different levels of user.

Once this happens you can then worry about enacting some sort of quality control on a central object repository. Until then i think you are just further reducing the developer pool - it is already small enough.

Graphisoft doesn't seem to understand that custom objects (and better parametrics at all project scales) are of major importance to ArchiCAD's future. They do not have the resources to create everything anyone could ever need and so they need to provide the easy-to-use tools to open it up to the wider community.

One last thing, slightly OT but related to ease-of-use - the thing i like about Grasshopper is its drag 'n drop modular nature. All those functions you can string together are available in the text-based RhinoScript (GDL) but with Grasshopper they are self contained packages of working code. You do not need to type out several lines and make sure the formatting, punctuation, etc are all correct. No stupid typos or formatting errors will bring your entire GDL script to a standstill. You simply plug in your input values and they work. No input and they just sit there and let the rest of the working script function (unlike GDL where you have to comment them out or it breaks your script).


cheers,

os

Master wrote:

owen wrote:
Once this happens you can then worry about enacting some sort of quality control on a central object repository. Until then i think you are just further reducing the developer pool - it is already small enough.

Another good point, but I am trying to make the best of it right nów. I am sure GS does acknowledge the necessity of improving GDL, but I do not want to wait on that.

Fair enough ... we have already been waiting a long time, and quite some more to do yet i fear

Master wrote:

owen wrote:
They do not have the resources to create everything anyone could ever need and so they need to provide the easy-to-use tools to open it up to the wider community.

That is why we need to make creating objects popular.

Which also unfortunately means returning to point 1 - making it accessible, perhaps 'fun' even .. not like current state of extracting teeth without the anaesthetic.

Who knows, maybe if they did have a registered GDL developer program they could use the fees to fund resourcing the overhaul of the scripting interface? I would sign-up in a minute if i knew this would get it delivered in the next 18-24 months (and be part of a testing program of course )

Braza

You're right ... this subject has been done to death. I just can't help biting everytime it is thrown out there though

Anyway i agree we have to make do with what we have today and not keep holding out for the next version ... and so i support any activities to improve the amount (and standard) of GDL content out there.

They must not however distract Graphisoft from the pressing need for a better GDL editor - that is the only real thing that will make any big difference to the application of GDL in the community.

Braza wrote:
From what I've seen from GS products (TW2, MEP, VBE, etc...), I refuse to think that at this right moment, at GS headquarters, there is no task force group trying to achieve this.

Unfortunately i think the opposite .. they are spread very thin at the moment with all these new tools (which noone was really asking for BTW). There are no resources left for the not-insignificant task of overhauling GDL. All their new tools appear to be bypassing GDL entirely (Curtain Wall, Complex Profiles, etc). Not encouraging really

Braza wrote:

owen wrote:
All their new tools appear to be bypassing GDL entirely (Curtain Wall, Complex Profiles, etc).

Exactly!... If you look through a different perspective... Perhaps this is a good sign.

not really if it means relying even more on what tools Graphisoft choose to develop. A better scripting language that can hook into any tool or geometrical function in ArchiCAD will allow users to create parametric tools when they find something is not there or not working in what Graphisoft provides.

The way they are headed seems more a case of providing easy-to-use but really 'dumb' interfaces like the Profile Manager (non-parametric fills) and then relying on programmers to build complex functions as AddOns via the API. If GDL is bad enough C/C++ is not stepping in the right direction to encourage content creation!

Anyway .. OT again and i agree this has been done to death many times before so I will finish by saying the current state of affairs is not at all encouraging to prospective developers who can see GDL seems to be dying on the vine due to lack of development from GS (and no sign of change). Why invest time (i.e money) in a stagnant system whose support seems to be dying in even on its home turf.

Having a 'Registered Developer Program' will (IMO) mean absolutely nothing if it does not coincide with some real concrete signs from Graphisoft that scripting for ArchiCAD (not via the API) is going to be made much, much easier and provide the ability to really extend what people can do in the program. It will just be preaching to the converted otherwise.

I do not think there is a lack of trust in the abilities of object developers out there. There is however a lack of understanding of what GDL can actually provide due to its opaqueness, a lack of 'wow look what it can do' examples and the fact that it really is lagging years behind where it should be - leading to a lack of trust in Graphisofts continuing support and development.