topic Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ? in Libraries & objects

A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:29:03 GMT

Does anyone have any idea if GDL could evolve towards a more "object oriented" programming language ?
I mean by that that you could use functions instead of subroutines, classes etc.. and other things that make it easier when building complex algorithmer.
I think it could give GDL another level of use, as a study tool to experiment.
When looking at things generated through Maxscript or Rhinoscript in youtube you can see som interesting examples.
GDL is I think is far more interesting I would say due to its smart way of describing geometry, but its weak point is IMHO its syntax which is too close to Basic instead of javascript or other languages.
That would be a great thing if it should happen, but I have no idea if it is possible
best regards

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

ztaskai — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:40:29 GMT

All of us see clearly that the current syntax and logic of GDL is very far from object orientation (except for solid operations). This change would be so deep that GDL would have to go GDL2.0 with no compatibility with current GDL. Knowing this, such a change could imply changing the Basic-like syntax for something Java-like or Python-like or whatever.
This would surely improve the readability and modularity of GDL source code. But this change wouldn't add anything to the descriptive power of GDL. This second reason makes this revamp less valuable. Less valuable than its tremendous cost.

There may be a time when going object oriented will be the reasonable decision for Graphisoft. I'm quite sure it won't come in the next couple of years. There are a lot of smaller fixes which can make GDL better.

I don't want to kill this idea but I would focus on the little annoying things instead.

I'm sorry to bring the realities in this idea-topic:)

Regards,
Zsolt

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

vistasp — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:50:17 GMT

Olivier, I don't know a thing about object-oriented programming so could you explain how it would benefit GDL?

Have just got a handle on some basic and am not sure if a more powerful and therefore (possibly) more complicated language is compatible with my architect's brain. 😉

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

ztaskai — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:55:09 GMT

vistasp wrote:
Have just got a handle on some basic and am not sure if a more powerful and therefore (possibly) more complicated language is compatible with my architect's brain. 😉

Thank you for bringing up this angle. You are right: normal architects would need a replacement for GDL before making it even more sophisticated. This is a definite prerequisite which postpones the issue some more.

Regards,
Zsolt

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:27:04 GMT

ztaskai wrote:
Thank you for bringing up this angle. You are right: normal architects would need a replacement for GDL before making it even more sophisticated. This is a definite prerequisite which postpones the issue some more.

Perhaps it should actually hasten the need to deal with the issue.

The average architect cannot get their head around the current GDL. A new approach needs to be taken. The actual direction is not particularly important, it just needs to be presented in a format that is not so arcane and unfriendly.

I'd prefer it if the majority of the GDL was 'hidden' from the general user, and a sophisticated front-end built that allowed objects to be constructed visually with parameters. If the advanced user wanted to fiddle with the code manually, they should still be able to.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this actually satisfied 70% of peoples needs at the moment. A large proportion, whatever the figure.

Maybe you need to get someone like Ralph onto it!

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

ztaskai — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:52:36 GMT

Peter wrote:
Perhaps it should actually hasten the need to deal with the issue.

The average architect cannot get their head around the current GDL.

...

Sure. We need to do something. But you should see that this isn't a pure coding issue a talented programmer (like Ralph) could solve. This is a heavy design job to produce a good interface and workflow which integrates fluently with ArchiCAD.

Unlike for GDL2.0, we have (mid-long term) plans for such a solution. It has to come someday.

Regards,
Zsolt

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:34:02 GMT

I undestand your point, and didn't realize it would be such a huge step for GDL.
Anyway I hope this mid solution will come soon!
But I would like to say 2 more things:
-A GDL2.0, or object oriented GDL wouldn't necessaryli be more difficult than the actual GDL, quite the contrary as it would be similar to most of the other programming languages out there.
-Another obstacle to using GDL is the fact is that if you are using it to model something, you have then to do all modifications through GDL, and this can be scary(and difficult). It would be really great if you could at some point "explode" the GDL" into primitives and adjust the things manually.
Or maybe this:
Without exploding the object you kind of freeze it with its actual parameters and 3d, and edit the primitives a bit like a block editing in Autocad and then save the object. At this point the object doesn't follow any longer the 3d script, but its geometry is as saved during the edition. You might then at a later time unlock it and make it follow again the script.
Hope you have your own ideas at graphisoft on that.
Keep up the good work!
Olivier

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

ztaskai — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:49:11 GMT

Thanks for the further ideas.

I think the "editing again" thing must be a basic feature of any custom content creation function. We'll remember this when designing this functionality.

Regards,
Zsolt

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:14:11 GMT

Hello Vistasp,
you asked for explanation about the advantages of a more obj oriented language.

I see two examples at first sight:

-it is easier for complex prgorams with lots of variables, as they are local to functions they are created in.

-The big adv.: you could have nested objects (for ex. balusters and posts in a railing) with their own parameters adjustable form the top object. As it is now you have to make a parameter to choose the subobject (with already defined possible values), and create in the top object the same parameters as in the subobject to be able to change those latest. This makes it virtually impossible to create really versatile objects which would mix many subobjects, as in Revit for ex.
In a good obj oriented system you could get access to the parameters of subs as well as to choose which subs you want without locking their possible values from the main object.

There are surely more things to say about this subject.

Best regards,
Olivier

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

vistasp — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:11:05 GMT

Thanks for the details Olivier. It would be great to create more complex and intelligent objects. My only worry as an architect is the complexity of the language itself! 😉

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:38:10 GMT

Olivier wrote:
-Another obstacle to using GDL is the fact is that if you are using it to model something, you have then to do all modifications through GDL, and this can be scary(and difficult). It would be really great if you could at some point "explode" the GDL" into primitives and adjust the things manually.
Or maybe this:
Without exploding the object you kind of freeze it with its actual parameters and 3d, and edit the primitives a bit like a block editing in Autocad and then save the object.

Hi, guys

I had a similar idea few years ago. At the time i was often scripting elements in GDL. I was annoyed with constant need to precisely modify values, so, at one point created a link between simple forms. I created new object, point in 3D, and passed it's value to one of the generating functions. So, now, when i open 3d of my, say, extruded profile, i have points on it that i can drag in 3d, and form adapts to new position of the point.

I abandoned further development because i can't call rebuild form gdl script, so i have to rebuild 3D manually every time. Even offered the code to Graphisoft at one point, but never heard from them.

Anyway, it can be done without moving to GDL2.0 Adding couple of commands to current GDL would be enough. Not that i don't hate current syntax

And, for classes, you can use macros. Since you can always call a macro and pass the parameters to it, I'd say that's it.

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

owen — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:58:10 GMT

ztaskai wrote:
I think the "editing again" thing must be a basic feature of any custom content creation function. We'll remember this when designing this functionality.

GDL does not necessarily need a new 'format' .. unless of course you mean new commands .. a LOT of new commands. And a completely new interface - taken from a slightly off-topic post earlier today:

owen wrote:
Rob wrote:
... this would require much more powerful GDL code base which I think is unnecessary. The overall goal should actually be moving from coding as such to more graphic tools.

Yes a good graphical editor really is a must - I don't know why Graphisoft still haven't shown any intention of doing something about it. If done properly it could make ArchiCAD incredibly powerful compared to what it is today for parametric design. ArchiCAD's modeling capabilities need to step up before they get left in the dust, and when they do anything that the AC engine is capable of creating should be accessible via this graphical object editor. Although I agree the goal should be moving to graphical editing, the editor should also provide for working in both 3D and code views - a split view would be ideal, so you can see the effects of working in one mode 'live' in the other. But all this has been done to death and seems to be falling on deaf ears...

Rob wrote:
Secondly it would be a huge overhead to program an internal interpreter that would allow for 'degrading' a code to earlier versions. In fact I think it would not be possible at all in some cases (SEO, movable hotspots etc)
Agree it is not really feasible to include a converter but you should be able to save back to earlier versions if you want to and run the risk of it not working. I have mistakenly edited an object in AC12 several times when running AC11 in parallel - there is no recourse other than your backups. This is completely ridiculous when I know for certain all the code is actually AC10 compliant.

What this new editor should have is some form of code validation check with AC Version options highlighting code that is not compatible with the selected version.

So yes i guess you could say 'edit again' is an important function. The new interface should allow you script any model entity ArchiCAD is capable of creating really.

One more thing .. Maxonform was a graphical GDL creator (via 3rd party app) which allowed you to 'edit again'. It was in no way parametric though.

Please promise you will never, ever ever do something like that again.

and lastly

ztaskai wrote:
Unlike for GDL2.0, we have (mid-long term) plans for such a solution. It has to come someday.

The day is long overdue - this has been near the top of so many users wish lists for such a long time ... years and years, many versions of AC. Nothing has really changed in GDL and absolutely nothing in terms of how we work with it. So we can only assume alot of planning has been happening these past years. High expectations ..

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:27:34 GMT

First i have to say i am socked. A guy from Graphisoft actually discussing in here!! This is a very pleasent suprise

Some basic thought - assumptions.

1) Sketchup shows clearly how intelegent and usefull objects can be
2) You should not let the past drag you down because in the end, it will bring the whole project down.
3) I will again use Sketchup as a paradigm to point basic axes

a) Ease of use: A basic interface to create objects, with basic interactivity etc
b) Advanced use. The graphic design interface (from (a)), actually generates code. An advanced user should be able to continue and build on that code.

4) Object oriented approach, interactivity, access to the building database... Does this sound like Ruby . There are free Langs out there. There is no need to stick to GDL (although i am sure you will) and hold the project back many years.

As for backwards compatibility, i guess just viewing the mesh would be possible. Its time (or better its already late) to move on

Re: A more "object oriented" GDL format ?

vistasp — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:23:28 GMT

oreopoulos wrote:
First i have to say i am socked.

Knocked you off your feet, did it? 😉

Zsolt has been posting of late and it's always nice to hear from someone on the team.