That feature is still present in many modern environments and a rather important one, it's hardly a left over, and it makes sense for backward compatibility as a default behaviour, and to be honest the way I use the script editor it makes sense in general close to half the time. Soft lacks that feature entirely, and its debugging facilities have been horrible in general since day 1.
This is not some sort of maya apology, I'd like the option (though I'd like it as a new type of tab editor instance, NOT as a general script editor preference, as I want to be able to have both behaviours in different tabs), but it's not that big of a deal IMO, it certainly isn't show stopping or something you can't comfortably work around, just sort of wonky in how sudden it is if you're not used to it. I feel the point is getting a bit belaboured, and it's very possible we use editors and contexts so differently that I simply don't understand your angle. That said, objectively speaking I don't think you can simply put it down to some archaic remnant that should be erased, because it's not. It's not "the editor wipes out", that'd be a bug, it's session persistence, that's a behaviour, and frequently enough a desirable one, so it shouldn't be removed. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Matt Lind <ml...@carbinestudios.com>wrote: > The feature was developed for a different era and is largely a holdover > from Wavefront Advanced Visualizer, no? Back then all that was available > were expression languages, so it made some limited sense to have such a > feature, but even by those standards still stupid as a default behavior. > > > > I don’t think a new editor is necessary. Can be solved with a user > preference or button in the editor itself, with default value of not > deleting the code upon clicking the execute button. Considering there are > a bazillion other user preferences already, I don’t see how this was > ignored for so long. It’s like Honda or Toyota building cars with nails > embedded in the tires causing flats right out of the factory and refusing > to fix the problem because some customers want to replace their tires upon > taking possession of the car at the dealership. While not putting nails in > the tires could disrupt a few customers, I think it would benefit a great > many more and improve the company’s reputation. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Raffaele Fragapane > *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 6:40 PM > > *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > *Subject:* Re: First Softimage -> Maya transition videos posted > > > > Well, to be honest there is a basis for it. In Maya the environment > persists, so when you "run" something what you are doing is committing it, > much like it'd happen in a command line python instance. > > E.G. type and run A = 1, run it (cleared), then run print A. > > > > That has some upsides (persistence has come in handy more than once, and > debugging tends to be superior), but also some downsides as rot is hard to > monitor, and it doesn't cater to any quick and dirty usage scenarios where > you want every run to truly be run-once. > > > > If they just flat out removed it then it'd break a past quality and lose a > feature, likely to public outrage. > > What they should be doing, instead of changing it in place, is offer an > option for a new and better editor with execution mode choices. > > > > All in all for anything of a certain complexity I simply don't run things > inside ANY script editor anyway, and I developed the select all + ctrl > enter twitch a decade ago to cut the cost of broken mice down, but it > surely could use more options. > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Matt Lind <ml...@carbinestudios.com> > wrote: > > CTRL-Z or not, that has to rank up there as one of the most stupid > workflows in the history of 3D. Think about it. You have to write > additional code to destroy that data. Somebody actually took time to spec > out, write, and debug the application to do that and QA didn’t catch the > stupidity. > > > > The only thing worse is the issue hasn’t been corrected yet. Code written > in 1996/97 still does the same thing in the year 2014. The only question I > have is: did Back to the Future predict this too? > > > > > > > > Normally I’d be angling to join a beta list, but when extremely obvious > stupidity exists front and center, it really makes a strong statement that > efforts on a beta list would be fruitless and wasted. > > > > Houdini it is. > > > > Matt > > > > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
