[apt4ssx8] Re: APT
- From: dave <dengvall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: apt4ssx8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:16:01 -0700
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 17:15 -0600, Brent Muller wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 July 2013, dave wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > The list has been pretty quiet lately. However, since I was not going to
> > Wichita and Matt was I ask him to get with their APT people and see what
> > a commercial version looks like.
> > And the answer is: not much different that APT360. I think what it comes
> > down to is that their programmers are simply experienced and very good.
> > So no magic bullet in terms of ideas for making programming easier.
> > Brent has been rather quiet lately also so I have no idea what is going
> > on if anything.
> >
> > Dave
> Well, I carried on for a while with the code base, and was starting to get
> data out from programs I ran on it, but it was clear that it was going to be
> a
> long, drawn-out business. I kind of expected, like I think most of us did,
> that the porting would be relatively quick and painless, and that the
> functionality would offer more of a graphical interface. The use of a
> program
> and meta-file that was undocumented to generate parsing code made it
> extremely
> difficult to work with and understand, among other things. In short, I just
> kind
> of lost interest, and it didn't seem like there was a great deal of interest
> elsewhere, so I just dropped the ball.
>
> I still have a great fondness for Apt, and use it still at work, but I really
> think it needs to be part of a larger, more graphical project.
> Brent.
>
>
I understand, but as it stands it is very difficult to use. I would
never use it for 2.5D but for surfaces it would be nice but I'll never
get there without lots of visual help.
I'm slowly getting my CAD to work in solids but that isn't fast either.
It just is not as flexible as I would like.
Maybe Matt can shake loose the latest PD version and that should help.
Dave
Other related posts:
