Suggested changes to this forum

[alanjt]

Not trying to sound arrogant/elitist but I don't think it should be open - as we don't really want erroneous LISP routines in there...

Isn't that saying that one person's contribution is more/less useful than another and thus deeming/denying them posting privileges.

[Lee Mac]

Isn't that saying that one person's contribution is more/less useful than another and thus deeming/denying them posting privileges.

No, I was merely saying that if it was open for anyone to post we might well find it be filled with erroneous routines - I would suggest that if the user wants to post a routine, they ask permission.

[alanjt]

No, I was merely saying that if it was open for anyone to post we might well find it be filled with erroneous routines - I would suggest that if the user wants to post a routine, they ask permission.

Then they should/could just be submitted to mods.

[CADTutor]

Isn't that saying that one person's contribution is more/less useful than another and thus deeming/denying them posting privileges.

I'm not sure. The objective is not to only allow posting by "elite" programmers but to ensure the routines in the Archive are tested and reliable. So, it's not to do with who can post but what the forum contains. I guess it depends how we see it being used. Maybe we need 2 forums, one for vetted routines with controlled access and an open forum for all contributions?

It's still open to debate and I'm keen to design a system that works for most people.

[SEANT]

. . . . and an open forum for all contributions? . . . .

The consequences are potentially more critical for Managed(.NET) and Unmanaged(C++) ARX as both are quite capable taking down AutoCAD when they crash (not usually a worry for either Lisp or VBA).

If there is a forum with unrestricted access then it may be sensible to include a “sticky” post to conspicuously warn users of the hazard: An umbrella disclaimer of sorts.

Edit: After a closer look I see that the current AutoLISP Archive already has a "umbrella disclaimer" . . . . CadTutor has that situation covered in the Terms of use sticky.

[Lee Mac]

Exactly my point Sean

[The Buzzard]

I agree also.

[BIGAL]

My five cents worth any code posted must be source only no dll's dvb particuarly with .Net.

Whilst its user beware at least you look for hidden words "delete file" ?

I must agree also I try to contribute but there seems to be more and more expecting some else to write the code for them not searching for soloutions and or find the answer rather than actually learning how to program by example.

Finally, having a completed vetted code section is good with a few more generic key words of its use for simple searching. "Have you looked in the completed code section" may become a well used post reply.

[Freerefill]

I understand the risks associated with essentially an open-source library, but at the same time, there are benefits.

If you restrict access, whom do you restrict it to? A slew of new mods? A few select individuals voted "best at" or "reasonably good enough at" whilst at the same time "more trustworthy than others"? The only good thing here is that it would filter out a lot of malicious or useless code.

If you do not restrict access, then yes, anyone can edit the code, including but not limited to removing/modifying headers with copyright information or inserting malicious code. At the same time, anyone can take a good idea and post their efforts, and anyone else with good ideas can modify it into something better, without having to wait for a moderators approval or judgment.

Perhaps the forum would be viewable by anyone, but limited to modification by someone who has more than X forum posts? Personally, I like the fact that anyone has the potential or capability to modify something. I think open-source is the best thing since sliced bread. Then again, I'm the kind of person who doesn't modify what's existing, so I fit nicely into that system. And I do understand the risks. A post count would be an automatic way of determining if someone has put in some amount of effort.

Another option would be to set up a wiki, that way all the modifications are saved, and anything could be easily reset. Then again, that opens up its own can of worms... but oh well. That's brainstorming. Technically I could suggest hooking a CNC machine up to an HTML form which, upon submission, would carve the source code into a block of wood, which would then be organized and stored by trained beavers.

The only other thing I want to say is that, ultimately, the people who come on here looking for and requesting programs and scripts, it's up to them to decide whether or not they want to use it. It's up to them to understand what it's doing. It's their responsibility, just like it is yours or mine when our cars break down or our wrist-watches hit daylight savings time. If there is malicious code in a script, or even if there isn't, well, it's the user's fault for blindly assuming it'll do its job without flaw.

[ReMark]

The AutoLISP Archive should remain "as is". Routines included in that forum should be vetted. CADTutor does not want to risk its reputation on bad or malicious code does it?