Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Jee-Bee
Veteran
Posts: 2566
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:32 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by Jee-Bee »

vocx wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:22 am ...
It is already crear that you against a version number change.
But than i have 2 questions to you:
  • In general software (NOT FC!!) what makes a piece of software 1.0 ready what are the requirements .
  • To what equaly type of software do you compare FC and what is the version number of that piece of software?
The funny thing of your low numbered comparison is that it are most software packages that have reached version 1.0 years ago.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by chrisb »

Although times have changed it would be interesting what it needed for the commercial packages to come up with 1.0. And what it needs now to go from one integer to the next. Are there ever any incompatibilities? Can model from version 1.0 still be edited today?
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Jee-Bee
Veteran
Posts: 2566
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:32 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by Jee-Bee »

The oldest CAD software i saw on wikipedia was NX (1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_NX
The newest CAD software is oneshape (2015 was the beta release) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onshape
Oneshape started with $9 000 000 (first round) to give a bit of info what the could spend for the needed kind of effort...
Last edited by Jee-Bee on Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by chrisb »

9 Mio doesn't seem extremely much if it had to be developed from scratch.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Jee-Bee
Veteran
Posts: 2566
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:32 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by Jee-Bee »

only first round is mentioned... don't know how much round there have been.
but still average $200 per working hour still 45000 working hours is about 2 years of work for more than 20 employees... you can do a serious amount of work in that time...
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by chrisb »

Ok, got it. We would be glad to give a million to Werner. I wouldn't be surprised if it amounts to less than $10/hour.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
vocx
Veteran
Posts: 5197
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by vocx »

Jee-Bee wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:25 am
  • In general software (NOT FC!!) what makes a piece of software 1.0 ready what are the requirements .
  • To what equaly type of software do you compare FC and what is the version number of that piece of software?
The requirements are different for different types of software. You cannot compare in absolute terms a text editor, to a music sheet editor, to a professional grade 3D CAD software. You have to consider development within the same project.

In many cases programs get the 1.0 version because their developers don't have a long term vision of where they want to go at the beginning. In many situations the first version ever released is the 1.0 version. They say, "okay, we have made a lot of progress, so this should be 1.0". That often results in the program quickly increasing its numbering. As the original 1.0 version doesn't have many features, they quickly add more features and it results in 2.0, then to 3.0, then to 4.0, etc.

In FreeCAD, the developers decided to start with a low number, 0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, etc. So, it means that in their own vision, they didn't want to rush to 1.0 status. Obviously, to them, reaching that number meant something important, a sufficiently complete set of features. And this is my idea as well.

But now, some users think that we are already there, and that we should rush to 1.0. I think we will get there, just not right now. We need 3 to 5 years, once some major changes are introduced and tested, and once we have a better organization of the project including tutorials and programming documentation.
The funny thing of your low numbered comparison is that it are most software packages that have reached version 1.0 years ago.
Again, you cannot compare what other numbers mean in other programs. As I mentioned, in many cases other projects chose their 1.0 very fast, but since then, they have slowed down, and now keep a slower, more focused development, with a proper roadmap.

Blender was closed source in its inception. When it became open source around the year 2002, it was in version 2.2. In twenty years until now, they advanced only in minor numbers, 2.30, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, etc. until they reached 2.80 of today. That basically is resetting the counter to 0, and moving to 1.0 today. You can argue the 2.80 version for them is a completely new chapter in their history, so they should have moved to 3.0 to show that.

Or look at Python. In 2000 they launched 2.0, which only now in 2020 is considered obsolete (FreeCAD moved to Python 3 fully only two years ago!). They finished in 2.7. They didn't just increment the number extremely fast, they had stable yearly releases advancing at a good pace, but with clear objectives. Python 3 appeared in 2008 but it wasn't really used until a few years later that it was around 3.2. Right now we are in Python 3.8. Again, not an abrupt increase in numbering, just steady development.

So, I think we should continue with yearly releases of 0.20, 0.21, 0.22, 0.23, etc., until we know there aren't going to be major changes like App Link, or a new PartDesign or a new TechDraw, and then we can transition to 1.0. It won't take forever, it will just take a few more years. It also depends on the new developers that surely will join the effort in these coming years. With new people, the pace of testing and development will be better.
Last edited by vocx on Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
fc_tofu
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:56 pm

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by fc_tofu »

looo wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:40 am ...
I guess this discussion here is heavily dependent on an agreement for future version handling. So let's define first the policy for the version-string / API-compatibility and backward-compatibility and decide about going to 1.0 or 0.20 later.
+10
csm
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:14 am
Location: /de

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by csm »

Why not use the year of release as version number ?? (+ decimal digits for patches during the year as before)

Ok, the 'holy 1.0' will missed so, but perhaps this would be a little compromise to come together again: The one get their higher numbers, for the others there's no limitation regarding to enough intermediate steps. Besides this would be also a logically explainable step vis-à-vis outsiders...
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

Post by chrisb »

csm wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:02 pm Why not use the year of release as version number ?
I suggested this already twice in this topic. It is obviously not suited for a heated discussion.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Post Reply