A ‘script editor’ is for developing scripted code, often from scratch, and testing the logic and workflow in the context of its use. It’s a very iterative workflow full of trial and error as you build up the logic and features cumulatively while writing generically and comprehensively work with the application’s API. Having your code deleted every time you click the execute button is the exact opposite behavior you want in such a workflow. That’s why it’s so stupid. Can you imagine C++ development where your code is deleted each time you click the compile button? Honestly, I cannot think of another ‘script editor’ in any application that behaves in the way Maya’s does by deleting code upon clicking the execute button. That’s including web development and other industries. I think there’s a reason for that – it’s counter productive.
A ‘script editor’ should have default behavior for script development. If the intention is to debug with persistence, as you say, then it shouldn’t be called a script editor. It should be called a debugger. Debugging why a scene isn’t behaving as expected is a very different context than developing code for use as a tool. In debugging mode you’re poking and prodding what things are doing in a specific context. You often don’t write much code in a debug session. You’re more or less inspecting and tracing it to expose the problem. The scenario you present about persistence is in effect, but most modern applications have implemented some form of JIT debugging for that purpose. I can see how you only want to execute small bits of code and perhaps iteratively, but I still don’t see how deleting code in an editor is productive under any scenario. I would tend to think it would be better to make the user work with selections or some other mechanism to get the same behavior. Semantics leads to expectations. Matt From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffaele Fragapane Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: First Softimage -> Maya transition videos posted 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Raffaele Fragapane Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:40 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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!
