[HN Gopher] VVVV - A hybrid visual/textual development environme...
___________________________________________________________________
VVVV - A hybrid visual/textual development environment for .NET
Author : password4321
Score : 115 points
Date : 2024-06-15 05:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (visualprogramming.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (visualprogramming.net)
| yodon wrote:
| Sigh, another cool looking project where a programmer who knows
| nothing about licensing wrote their own license, and made their
| project unusable by anyone.
|
| Good lawyers aren't automatically good programmers, and good
| programmers aren't automatically good lawyers.
|
| There is a reason why the Open Source community has standardized
| around a small set of licenses, and a reason why most attempts at
| writing new licenses end up in sadness.
| omoikane wrote:
| And it says "pattern pending", probably should have been
| "patent pending". But the same text has been there since 2020,
| so maybe it's intentional.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200401215651/https://visualpro...
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| According to whatever "TRUST" is, the seem pretty keen on their
| own rules.
|
| What if they don't want anything else enforced by an existing
| license?
| yodon wrote:
| Wanting something, and writing a license that delivers what
| you want are two different things.
|
| They may know what they want, but that doesn't mean they know
| how to write a license that delivers what they want.
|
| "Do what I mean, not what I say" is not effective in either
| code or contracts.
| g15jv2dp wrote:
| I can't even find the text of their license anywhere.
| cess11 wrote:
| "vvvv can be used freely without any limitations for the
| following purposes:
|
| Evaluation
|
| Non-commercial use
|
| FOSS development
|
| Contribution development
|
| Teaching and learning vvvv"
|
| For all other cases you go to https://store.vvvv.org/ .
| chii wrote:
| Basically, a classic case of trying to use the opensource
| monika for marketing purposes, whilst trying to retain the
| ability to make money off the popularity when/if it does
| happen.
|
| That's why if an "opensource" software does not use one of
| the standard OSS approved licenses, it is just shareware by
| another name.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Just fyi, the word is moniker, not monika.
| chii wrote:
| I keep making that same error =D
| xkjyeah wrote:
| The same erra
| cess11 wrote:
| They've been doing this since the late nineties or so. I
| think they consider their licensing model proven to work
| for them by now.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > Basically, a classic case of trying to use the
| opensource monika for marketing purposes,
|
| vvvv does not claim anywhere to be open source.
|
| > whilst trying to retain the ability to make money off
| the popularity when/if it does happen.
|
| vvvv has been around for about 25 years. I would suggest
| to do a bit more research before jumping to conclusions.
|
| BTW, they do open source quite a few components under
| proper OSS licenses: https://github.com/vvvv
| bowsamic wrote:
| Can you explain what exactly about this license makes it
| unusable?
| fsloth wrote:
| I would like a point for point critique as well, not all of
| us are experts in legal and commercial aspects of licensing.
|
| I'm embarrassed to admit my own working model is really
| limited as I've only worked in orgs where license issues were
| always _somebody elses problem_. I.e. somebody mandates which
| licenses can be used, and if there is a commercial offering
| you need to use, somebody else negotiates the terms and
| pricing.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| vvvv has been around for at least a decade (I recall looking at
| it when I was studying a digital arts degree in '09) so I doubt
| this is a problem in practice.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > vvvv has been around for at least a decade
|
| 25 years
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Whelp, that's definitely at least a decade.
| Dayshine wrote:
| What's unusual about a proprietary product which has a non
| commercial use carve out? That's pretty standard isn't it?
| as1mov wrote:
| Indeed, I am confused what's so bad about this license?
|
| Commercial use requires buying a license, and free for non-
| commercial uses. The website isn't using some bait and switch
| pseudo open-source tactics too, it's pretty clear that the
| product is proprietary.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > There is a reason why the Open Source community has
| standardized around a small set of licenses,
|
| What are you talking about? vvvv is proprietary software (and
| has been for about 25 years)
| osigurdson wrote:
| Wiring programs together on a 2D canvas is nice when the problem
| being solved is amenable to it (signal processing, pipelines,
| etc.). But, a typical general purpose program would look like a
| breadboard from hell, no matter how hard one tries to organize
| nicely organize it.
| almost wrote:
| The solution to certain types of programs not being suitable to
| write in it is just... don't.
|
| I did various bits of freelance work on VVVV projects a while
| ago. Often writing C++ or C# code to interface with VVVV. Even
| when I was mostly stuck in the guts of the C++ bit having a
| test rig in VVVV was a lovely way to interact with and test
| code.
|
| As far as I remember it's absolutely simplicity to create a
| node that contains custom C# code (double click it and an
| editor window pops up). I definitely remember doing that for
| bits of logic that seemed easier to express that way.
|
| I saw people build very cool stuff in it back then. If you're
| building interactive visuals the "always live" way of working
| seems to allow some pretty fast iteration. Definitely saw
| things built in it that maybe would have been better built in
| other ways, but that's just natural when you have people highly
| skilled in one tool or language.
| fsloth wrote:
| There are some domains where it's really helpful to empower
| subject expert to develop their domain specific data flow,
| without them needing to learn the ins and outs of a language
| like c#.
|
| See for example Grasshopper for parametric architecture, or the
| node system in Blender.
|
| OFC maintainability of a spaghetti node system is borderline
| impossible so there are constraints and tradeoffs.
|
| Accessibility to non-software engineer domain talent is the
| main attraction imho.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I don't really agree that visuals immediately makes things
| messier but I do wish these systems leveraged scoped areas a
| bit better to reduce pin visual noise.
|
| That said, you just have to treat it like code and build up
| good patterns and styles to keep things tidy.
| FireInsight wrote:
| Seems to be an iteration of https://vvvv.org/
| jbl0ndie wrote:
| It's the same. I can't remember why they have two websites.
|
| Here's some earlier HN coverage and discussion of the same
| topic.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469274
| ofrzeta wrote:
| Not to be confused with VVVVVV
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVVVVV
| drivers99 wrote:
| Previously, there was a list of repeating (2 through 6
| inclusive) v projects:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842351
| SSchick wrote:
| The licensing seems.. atrocious (both the wording and pricing),
| maybe I'm too far disconnected from the space where such
| applications are used but. I'm unsure which industry would
| tolerate this.
| DrSiemer wrote:
| Spent a lot of time messing around with it a few years ago. The
| tutorials of Takuma Nakata are great and it's very powerful and
| versatile for creating cool experimental stuff.
|
| Not sure what the big problem with licensing is? Feels like some
| people just want everything in this space to be free. 500 euro
| for a lifetime license seems pretty generous to me, it's
| basically a small fee if you use it for any kind of commercial
| application.
| fsloth wrote:
| If the offering brings _any value at all_ to development of a a
| commercial offering then 500 EUR is very reasonable.
|
| The point is it needs to _improve_ something in your
| development flow that's not available elsewhere, in terms of
| feature velocity, availability of talent, etc, not just
| curiosity.
|
| QT, Unity etc have price points in this zone and if I remember
| correctly are higher.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Relying on a commercial product means you don't have the source
| code, means you're dependent on where they move in the future,
| means you're screwed if they shut down.
| voxic11 wrote:
| That isn't true at all. Many commercial products are source
| code available including this one
| https://github.com/vvvv/VL.StandardLibs
| alkonaut wrote:
| Free for nonprofits/hobbyists and EUR500 as soon as you use a
| piece of software commercially would be very reasonable. But
| charging the same from someone who doesn't make a penny as from
| a company making millions doesn't make much sense.
| croes wrote:
| That's vvvv beta, the recent version is gamma.
|
| Scroll down further.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| oh does this work for Lunyx
| whatever1 wrote:
| I desperately want visual programming to succeed.
|
| There must be a better way than text to make a program.
| conartist6 wrote:
| It will! There is! Just hang on a moment : )
| jayd16 wrote:
| I don't think it'll overtake text but it's alive and well all
| over the place and especially in the game industry.
| wvenable wrote:
| Written language and mathematics have been around for thousands
| of years; Why must _there must be better way_ than text to make
| a program? It 's how humans communicate. It's how you're
| reading this right now. This comment wouldn't be better as a
| picture or as a YouTube video.
|
| In all my experience with visual programming over several
| decades has been awful and it's because it's the wrong medium
| for complex ideas.
| big_paps wrote:
| This looks very good. I shyed away from geometry nodes because i
| have no patience to learn all the 3d stuff and it seems a bit
| limited for use with custom code and houdini is far too complex.
| This seems like a good middleground..
| sliq wrote:
| i remember using it in early 2002 (due to this sticky name). wow,
| never expected to see this little masterpiece again
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-16 23:02 UTC)