I am extra picky today, blame the chorizo I had yesterday. It's not an enormous waist, it's a waste. An enormous waist only happens if you drink a lot of beer and eat a lot of cookies.chrisb wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:56 pmYou describe here nothing more than the common process of a community development and I admit that much in FreeCAD was developed that way.
But that's not the only way, as I have seen in some other places here; humans are capable of more. I wouldn't have started this thread if I had accepted that FOSS can only be developed that way. What you describe is an enormous waist of programming power, because two of three solutions are developed and may finally not be used.
Anyway, I don't think it's a waste because as I mentioned previously, with the exception of A2plus, the other workbenches are very young, and are still being developed and tested by interested parties. There is nothing that clearly says there is a winner right now, and that we should be converging to a particular way of doing this. This is still being explored.
(I have seen people mention that they love A2plus and having separate files; and other people who say Assembly3 is clearly the way to go; and other people say that Assembly4 is the natural way things should go in an Assembly workbench. They all have merits.)
If we had set fixed (planned) rules for an assembly workbench in FreeCAD, then maybe realthunder would have never started work on Assembly3 and Link. Because this is free software, he had complete freedom to implement his ideas in a way that he wanted, and which not many people thought about, or had enough knowledge about. I think we can all agree that this unrestricted "evolution" has made FreeCAD better, as some of his ideas were merged with positive results into the main software.
The discussion is good, I just want to hit the breaks a little on the notion that "there are many ways to do (something), we are fragmented, and we should be converging to (one option)". I think we are still in a heavy development phase. So, we should be developing to see what sticks. We should talk and discuss as much as we want, but we should have that freedom to pursue what we feel....
After all I didn't want a meta discussion about different Assembly developments, I was hoping for a fruitful discussion about Assembly itself and how it should finally be.
I am personally against the notion that we should rush things and go "stable", and move into FreeCAD 1.0. That is occasionally mentioned by Bernd and triplus. I think we are far from that, as we still need to solve some fundamental issues regarding organization of FreeCAD as a community project, but also with regards to Assembly and all that. Enter FreeCAD 1.0 development cycle, name FreeCAD 0.91 instead of 0.20, means version after 0.19 could be 0.91