[HN Gopher] Autodesk deletes old forum posts suddenly
___________________________________________________________________
Autodesk deletes old forum posts suddenly
Author : nsoonhui
Score : 163 points
Date : 2025-01-02 05:43 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (forums.autodesk.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (forums.autodesk.com)
| not_your_vase wrote:
| Unfortunately the "internet doesn't forget" statement has been
| false since many years. Most companies couldn't care less about
| keeping the wealth information they've accumulated accessible.
|
| I remember a few years ago TI got bored with updating their
| cpuwiki, and deleted the whole this - which stings to this day.
| The internet is still full of links to it to solve crucial
| issues, only to be greeted with a disappointing error message.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Tbf, if you're lucky, there is web.archive.org and others like
| it, but yes, situations like those are common and
| disappointing.
| Roark66 wrote:
| It has became very obvious how reliant we are on Archive.org
| last time they had an extended outage (remember?, they got
| hacked,then they couldn't bring the system back up for weeks
| and weeks). Huge amounts of reference material suddenly
| dissappeared.
|
| Personally I think it is a huge error we don't force
| archive.org to allow others to mirror their data easily.
| trilbyglens wrote:
| Probably the real error is in not having a publically
| funded mirror.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Certainly seems like something that the Library of
| Congress should be handling.
| __jonas wrote:
| > Personally I think it is a huge error we don't force
| archive.org to allow others to mirror their data easily.
|
| What do you mean by this? I thought they definitely were
| open to mirrors, why would 'we' need to 'force' them to
| anything?
|
| IIRC the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt had a mirror of
| the web archive up, though they may have failed to maintain
| it
| johnfernow wrote:
| Right, archive.org is very useful if you have a URL, but if
| you're searching for a question that was answered in a forum,
| and that forum post no longer exists and no longer shows up
| in search results, then it's effectively undiscoverable as
| far as I'm aware.
|
| It amazes me how companies will have free volunteers help
| people to use their (often expensive) paid subscription
| products, and then delete all that info those volunteers
| wrote up. Don't they want people to use their products?!
| They're less likely to renew their subscription if they
| struggle or are unable to use the product for their
| particular use case.
|
| Unaffiliated forums not ran by the company are better in that
| the company can't decide to just delete all old posts one day
| (and while the owner could, certain types of unaffiliated
| forums are usually a bit easier to clone and republish.) The
| downside is you don't get assistance from people who work for
| that company, but often you rarely get that in official
| forums. The usual reason to use official forums is just that
| they have significantly more users asking and answering
| questions than unofficial ones.
| krackers wrote:
| >that forum post no longer exists and no longer shows up in
| search results
|
| I dream of someone taking the internet archive data,
| capping it at 2010 or so, then making a search engine out
| of it. I mean if AI companies are looking to gobble all the
| data they can get, then surely they'd jump at the chance to
| train on (higher quality) data from the past that simply no
| longer exists on the web. So it'd seem like a win-win
| situation if IA gave them a copy of the data on the
| condition that they maintain a permanent backup and provide
| some sort of searchable index on the data (maybe even via
| LLM), and in turn the AI companies got access to high
| quality data on obscure topics that simply no longer
| exists.
| jraph wrote:
| Yup, let's not tie such an important endeavor to AI and
| AI startups though, we need something robust and lasting
| :-)
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I dream of someone taking the internet archive data,
| capping it at 2010 or so, then making a search engine out
| of it
|
| It sounds like you're describing CommonCrawl.org, and
| yes, it's already popular with AI companies.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think "the internet doesn't forget" was not originally
| intended that way. It is a reminder that it is hard to reliably
| delete something from the internet. Unrelated to this auto desk
| issue.
|
| The internet does forget in the sense that stuff goes missing.
| Just, only stuff that you don't want to go missing!
| Sanzig wrote:
| It's essentially a law of the internet. Well-researched
| website on a niche topic written in the 00s? Lost forever.
| Your edgelord blog from when you were a teenager? Backed up
| in triplicate.
| Jalad wrote:
| Now that I think about it, this just looks like a
| specialization of Murphy's Law
| jraph wrote:
| Absolutely. You are screwed either way. It will fall on
| the wrong side.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| WebArchive still has a copy of a website that I made that
| is just text "John Smith is stupid", with John Smith being
| a friend of mine from teenage years.
| matt3210 wrote:
| It's in the AI model now no worries
| 256_ wrote:
| I feel like there should a law about this, but I'm not sure how
| it would work. Maybe companies should have to at least give a
| warning before they do it, so Archive Team (or the likes of
| them) can go into panic mode and archive everything before it
| gets deleted.
| samtho wrote:
| I don't think the reaction to everything we dislike should be
| "let's make it illegal" because you're going to end up with
| unintended harms. If companies are forced to retain public
| information against their will, many will simply opt not to
| have a public forum.
|
| If anything, governments should be proactively funding
| organizations that archive content and governments can
| archive content of significant cultural or historical value
| like the library of congress does for physical media.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| I do think there should be some kind of law, but it would
| also have to comply with gdpr Right to be Forgotten.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't think there should be a law requiring companies to
| keep a forum up. But perhaps it would be nice if we could
| have a customer protection based requirement to have some
| sort of customer support, along with acknowledgement that a
| customer support forum that could go away at any moment
| doesn't satisfy that requirement (so either include better
| customer service or take steps to preserve the community).
|
| I mean we wouldn't want companies to fall afoul of some law
| because they had to take their forums down due to some
| privacy ruining bug in the software. Or because the old forum
| server sitting in the basement died. Or because the third
| party software they used for the server went out of business.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > I mean we wouldn't want companies to fall afoul of some
| law because they had to take their forums down due to some
| privacy ruining bug in the software. Or because the old
| forum server sitting in the basement died. Or because the
| third party software they used for the server went out of
| business.
|
| With the exception of maybe a transient bug, isn't this
| exactly the point?
|
| "We wouldn't want a company to run afoul of [data
| preservation law] because they [neglected maintenance]"
| seems like the directly incorrect intent. We _would_ want
| to compel the business to migrate or modernize any hosting
| to keep it active and viable. If their vendor goes out of
| business, they should've paid more or migrated the data.
|
| If we're discussing a local club then sure, they're a
| victim to hardware failure or business changes, but this
| thread is full of billion-dollar-businesses. They can spend
| a few thousand dollars on a forum every few years. When I
| worked at $FAANG, my service had millions of users and cost
| like $10K/mo in hosting. Surely the Autodesk forum in read-
| only mode would cost a much less, and almost nothing if
| migrated to static HTML.
| knome wrote:
| It's a bad point. Forcing companies to maintain internet
| forums just because third parties may want the data in
| them isn't a reasonable thing to legislate.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| That's insane overreach.
|
| The web archive already works from the mode that anything can
| disappear at any time. Anyone who would rush to archive it if
| it were going offline could have archived it any time over
| the last N years.
|
| Websites getting shut down no matter the reason is just a
| part of life that we need to accept. Laws can't address the
| underlying churn of time. Forums should be easy come easy go,
| not open you up to litigation if you shut down your own site
| too quickly. Cmon.
| jraph wrote:
| > Unfortunately the "internet doesn't forget" statement has
| been false since many years
|
| As a sibling comment says, I think such sentences have meant
| "you can't rely on the internet to forget". Of course the
| reverse is also true: "you can't rely on the internet to
| remember".
|
| In short: don't write things you could regret, but make
| backups.
| frereubu wrote:
| Reminds me tangentially of the saying attributed to Mohammed
| - "Trust in God. But tie your camel first."
| nsoonhui wrote:
| Fun fact: the official announcement of this policy
| (https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/community-announcements/commu...)
| is not even reachable via a Google search.
| lelandfe wrote:
| Possibly just hadn't been indexed yet, looks fine:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fforums....
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > We encourage you to create a new thread about the same topic.
| It will help maintain the conversation while also resurfacing
| it on our boards to continue the conversation.
|
| Ohh god. Always surprises me how people building stuff for the
| internet completely dont understand the internet.
| geekodour wrote:
| algolia has done the same for their discourse forum, moved
| everything to discord and removed all old posts.
|
| Upon asking this was a response from the team: "The Discourse
| content is no longer available. Much of it was 5+ years old and
| no longer reflected current SDKs and APIs. We're glad to help you
| here."
|
| https://ibb.co/3htkxjv
| https://discord.com/channels/1171089640443367494/12783186879...
|
| people were unhappy obviously. I really don't understand this
| decision by them.
| benatkin wrote:
| That's pretty messed up. Maybe they don't deserve the honor of
| being HN's search engine anymore.
| spockz wrote:
| Isn't there a fancy LLM ai out there that is suited to
| ingesting a local knowledge base and create excerpts with
| links to the original source?
| trilbyglens wrote:
| Yuck!
| reddalo wrote:
| Also, why would anyone want to use Discord as a forum? It's
| horrible, not easily searchable, and you need a proprietary
| app. Nothing good about it.
| Tomte wrote:
| You can use your web browser, as well.
| prmoustache wrote:
| It is still shitty as well. UI/UX are terrible.
| benatkin wrote:
| It's about the same as the desktop app. It doesn't feel
| like a web app. The desktop app is better because it
| doesn't feel out of place.
|
| It's not a bad UI/UX IMO, but it can take some getting
| used to. For the notifications I have to check several
| options such as "silence @everyone and @here". Sometimes
| I find the updates annoying. But it's among the best chat
| UIs I've tried.
| trilbyglens wrote:
| Chat is a poor replacement for forums.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I'm shocked so many companies use Discord for official
| purposes.
| arkh wrote:
| > I'm shocked so many companies use Discord for official
| purposes.
|
| Going back in time you can replace it with: Discourse,
| forums, website, IRC.
|
| New generations of devs / manager decide to use "the
| current tool" to connect with their users. Too bad they
| also think it a good idea to nuke the older channels.
| sirtaj wrote:
| This time, the "current tool" doesn't allow searching via
| the web. Most discord forums I'm on are basically black
| holes in which questions keep getting repeated.
| reddalo wrote:
| Exactly, it doesn't even help the owners themselves,
| because people will keep asking the same things over and
| over again. It's not like a forum where you can easily
| search by topic.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| The owners do not care as much, because they're not the
| ones who answer the questions - a cadre of "volunteers"
| do.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I've launched projects that became bigger and discord is
| just kind of expected when building from the ground up and
| great for corralling a community
|
| I mentally categorize larger established organizations as
| something different
|
| but logically I can't really see the difference, so I
| understand why
|
| I also understand the negatives of that particular platform
| for getting information efficiently
|
| but I understand why they do it
| oblio wrote:
| You can just use the website.
|
| Edit: It's <<Discourse>>, not <<Discord>>.
|
| Edit 2: Oh, they moved from Discourse to Discord :-)) That is
| just messed up.
| Kiro wrote:
| I definitely understand it. I have some really old blog posts
| with tutorials for a deprecated version of my software and I
| get a lot of people complaining about things not working based
| on those. I've had to add disclaimers to the most popular ones.
| vachina wrote:
| Removing those content will make user experience worse and make
| AutoDesk harder to use (or learn on your own). Just let it
| (autodesk) die.
| baq wrote:
| Show me a tool that's more entrenched and for good reasons than
| autodesk's CAD... I'll accept Photoshop, but can not think of
| anything else
| seb1204 wrote:
| I am in two minds. All discussion about old old AutoCAD
| versions is more clutter than value. But discussions about
| profiles or lisp routines are not.
| acyou wrote:
| Archiving is probably a more accurate description, the content is
| likely still there somewhere but can no longer be adversarially
| web crawled.
| nsoonhui wrote:
| No, _deletion_ is the accurate description. Some links that are
| still available on Google search ( eg: try this query
| "https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+unit+test++civil+3d"
| and look for the posts that are> 10 year old) are no longer
| accessible; when you click on them you will be directed to the
| main forum page.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| The user's own .sig says it all: "Everything will work just as
| you expect it to, unless your expectations are incorrect."
|
| It's Autodesk, a company of skunks. You knew who they were when
| you signed up with them and gave them money. They did just what
| anyone who was paying attention would have expected of them.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Oh god, Autodesk. I tried to see if I could pay for education
| support because Fusion 360 account setup is unbelievably buggy,
| but no cigar.
|
| They have the worst installer and registration process in all of
| history. I really wish we could find an alternative - even
| willing to pay!
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| My kid wanted to learn 3d modeling, she is in middle school,
| and under than 12, according to their licensing, no luck as the
| kid needs to be over 14.
|
| Support was pointless ("education license is not for commercial
| use" ). Off we went on blender.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Good choice!
| anal_reactor wrote:
| Back in the day I heard an argument "Photshop and 3DS MAX are
| so easy to pirate because the companies want the kids to
| learn these tools, so that later as adult professionals
| they'll pay license for using them", but if that's no longer
| true, then good riddance
| Onawa wrote:
| OnShape has replaced Fusion360 for most of my needs, and it's
| free for personal use.
| baq wrote:
| Just the other day I created a fusion 360 account which also
| seems free for personal use? The CAD space is quite confusing
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| Free for now, under ever more restrictive conditions.
| krelas wrote:
| I've been going through the same thing. Take a look at Onshape,
| it's also free for education. I haven't had a chance to check
| it out myself yet but I hear good things.
| epa wrote:
| Should be already archived by archive.org?
| johnfernow wrote:
| Sure, but you can't search for the forum pages on archive.org
| as far as I'm aware (or at least as easily as searching on
| Autodesk's website or Google/Bing/etc.) For the time being, old
| forum posts will likely still show up in search engine search
| results, and you can take those URLs and look them up on
| archive.org.
|
| Eventually though they'll likely no longer show up whenever the
| search engine's crawlers revisit and it's a redirect, in which
| case the pages are undiscoverable.
| neilv wrote:
| Is this motivated by the value of the text (for internal use, or
| selling it), or about to launch some new "AI-powered" support
| thing, or by the headache of dealing with data scrapers pounding
| their servers, or something else?
| simonw wrote:
| Urgh, cultural vandalism.
|
| The challenge here is that there are people out there who just do
| not understand the inherent value of this kind of old content. If
| any company exists for long enough eventually some of those
| people will cycle into positions of decision-making authority
| where they get to "save costs" or "clean things up" by delete-
| hammering some invaluable artifact like this one.
|
| The correct way to handle this is to add a BIG banner on top of
| older content like this warning "This post is from 12 years ago,
| and may no longer reflect the most recent version of our
| software".
|
| Flattening a bunch of dynamic pages to static HTML can also be
| useful, if the concern is maintaining old forum software.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| It's not that they don't understand, it's that they don't care,
| more often than not. Sadly there has been a societal shift in
| my view that will be hard to reverse, just think of Boeing as
| an extreme example. We've created incentive structures that not
| only reward short-sighted decision making, but also created
| social norms that punish people who try to push for long-term
| goals or things that are not in one's immediate self-interest.
| Corporate sees you as a headache for not thinking about nothing
| but line going up, and your peers will deride you as a fool for
| not "getting it" and giving up like they have.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| Why offer knowledge for free if you can offer premium support
| instead
| bragr wrote:
| When Oracle bought Sun/Solaris, they took down the public
| Solaris forums which made my job working with illumos forks
| very difficult without all the years relevant Solaris 10
| questions and answers. In that case, it was a naked attempt to
| force people to license the then new Solaris 11.
| kjs3 wrote:
| This isn't about cost reduction. It's about eliminating any
| assistance for people who want to continue to use old versions
| of the software. Adobe is in the cloud/subscription business
| now, and it wants to make life for people holding on to their
| local, licensed copies as difficult as possible.
| jxramos wrote:
| this seems true and explains my inability to locate the
| plugin tooling for the latest version of Acrobat to develop
| some local extensions. My next move was to contact Adobe and
| ask directly where the corresponding SDK is to be downloaded
| for the latest local version of Acrobat. Sometimes companies
| give you some internal link that you can't find publicly or
| can't navigate to from the present version of their website.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Always Be Archiving. Never trust the platform.
|
| https://wiki.archiveteam.org/
| criddell wrote:
| How are these old posts invaluable? Do you think a paywall
| would have generated enough revenue to pay for serving them? If
| nobody is willing to pay for access, doesn't that mean they are
| in fact not valuable at all?
| bdndndndbve wrote:
| Such an insane paperclip optimizing way of thinking. The
| marginal cost to serve static content is very low as well -
| if they really didn't want to pay anything they could give it
| to a third party.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Autodesk made almost 5 billion dollars in 2023. You can host
| a vBulletin forum with incredibly high traffic for a couple
| thousand a year. Stop making excuses for shitty companies.
| kstrauser wrote:
| And that forum also provides an enormous amount of value to
| a company, saving them many multiples of that cost in
| reduced support expenses.
|
| Deleting this is madness.
| simonw wrote:
| A paywall would make them useless, because you wouldn't be
| able to find them using Google.
| bsder wrote:
| > Urgh, cultural vandalism.
|
| This was probably intentional. Those posts are no longer
| available to feed an AI. Now only Autodesk has access to those
| posts.
|
| People need to understand that the free ride is over. If you
| aren't hosting or archiving, it's going to disappear.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Ye I hate this. I work with a processor that TI manufactures
| and a huge part of the "eco system" was referring to a now
| defunct forum and wiki. It is a mess. At some point they just
| deleted it and replaced it with nothing. Links to download of
| tools and libs are broken. And support don't have them. I was
| just lucky I found them on arhive.org ...
| ghaff wrote:
| To give another perspective, from a company perspective,
| companies are mostly not really in the business of providing an
| archive. And if you provide a bunch of outdated information--
| banners flagging it as such or otherwise--you're mostly not
| doing most people any favors when they encounter that info when
| doing a search. Most companies pretty aggressively remove info
| more than a year old or whatever.
| WalterBright wrote:
| When I build a Javascript compiler, it used a lot of ActiveX
| interfaces. In the code that used a particular interface, I'd
| include a link to the Microsoft documentation on it.
|
| One day, all those links went to dead ends.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| According to some sources, this is what happened to Google
| Search.
| Maakuth wrote:
| ArchiveTeam (https://wiki.archiveteam.org/) fairly routinely
| makes archival blitzes on dying forums. If there's any
| forewarning of such on a forum you frequent, let them know.
| ykonstant wrote:
| If only they were around when my old hangout, www.wota.com, was
| alive :(
| theoa wrote:
| John Walker the founder would grieve as well:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_(programmer)
|
| He was a digital hoarder sharer. See:
|
| https://fourmilab.ch/
| cowboylowrez wrote:
| just nabbed his midi to csv gadgets! seems like an awesome guy!
| deckar01 wrote:
| It needed curation pretty bad. There is no shortage of people who
| ask and answer questions. The relevant knowledge will resurface
| as needed. I just hope they manage outdated information better in
| the future.
| rossng wrote:
| Does Autodesk have any remaining users that actually _enjoy_
| being their customer? Their CAD software is unstable and painful
| (just try installing it...); architects resent their stewardship
| of Revit[1] and so on.
|
| This seems like an existential risk to the company if something
| better comes along. Sure, they have massive lock-in, but these
| things don't last forever. Remember when we all thought that
| Microsoft Office file formats guaranteed an eternal monopoly?
|
| [1] https://the-nordic-letter.com/
| sschueller wrote:
| Fusion 360 is getting worse and costs more every year. Now they
| just emailed that the early renewal discount will also no
| longer be available.
|
| Sadly FreeCAD is just not there where it needs to be to be a
| good alternative.
| deckar01 wrote:
| Fusion turned a corner recently imo. They added the ability
| to reference driven dimensions in formulas, which makes fully
| parametric designs trivial. I seem to never get hung
| calculations or crashes anymore.
| montecarl wrote:
| I use fusion 360 several times a week, but I'm not quite
| able to follow what you said. Can you provide an example or
| a link to where they announced this feature?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Businesses have pipelines entirely relying on Autodesk tools &
| formats.
|
| > but these things don't last forever. Remember when we all
| thought that Microsoft Office file formats guaranteed an
| eternal monopoly?
|
| It will last long enough for Autodesk. The real issue being why
| Autodesk was allowed to basically buy most of its main
| competitors in the 3D/CAD authoring tool space without any push
| back from government agencies.
| jlarocco wrote:
| > The real issue being why Autodesk was allowed to basically
| buy most of its main competitors in the 3D/CAD authoring tool
| space without any push back from government agencies.
|
| That's not even remotely true. There's Dassault/Catia,
| Siemens/NX, PTC/Creo, and probably a dozen (or more) niche
| competitors.
|
| The real problem is massive vendor lock-in. Each CAD company
| goes out of their way to have crappy interop with the others.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Software for the construction industry is uniformly terrible,
| Autodesk and Trimble are the big players and I'd be grateful if
| someone disrupted them.
|
| There is a small amount of good construction software, Procore
| (project and document management) and Bluebeam (amazing pdf
| editor) are wonderful tools but the estimating software I use
| by Trimble is _awful_. Inconsistent UI, they use their own
| custom GUI elements instead of the built in Windows GUI
| elements, unclear interfaces, every UI /UX crime is present in
| it.
|
| Autodesk isn't going anywhere tho, basically every
| architect/engineer uses it (in commercial construction).
| johnyoder wrote:
| If you are a GC looking for an alternative project management
| software that is easy to use, modern, and fairly priced,
| consider https://constructable.ai (full transparency, I'm one
| of the co-founders).
|
| Everything being said about existing software in this post
| very much resonates with what we learned talking to hundreds
| of GCs. We want to change this.
| harrall wrote:
| If you think Autodesk is bad, try their competition.
|
| Paid competiting software from companies like Dassault are even
| more locked down and free software alternatives don't even come
| close in feature parity.
|
| Autodesk can do this because it's been 40 years, a lot of
| people have tried, and somehow they all manage to make
| something worse.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Has anybody identified the decision-maker responsible?
|
| Hopefully it's only a single individual who is now confirmed to
| be completely unsuitable for any future decision-making
| whatsoever.
|
| Without doing as much of a root-cause analysis as possible,
| people will not even be aware where the deficiency arose and
| there may be no protection going forward from such below-average
| performance.
|
| Decision-making is not for just anybody, I think it's obvious if
| you don't nip faultiness in the bud it could get even worse and
| spread to other companies.
|
| Even some companies which were high-integrity to begin with, as
| we have seen.
| crtified wrote:
| The internet, or dare I say it, Information Technology itself,
| has not yet come to proper terms with Time Context as an implicit
| aspect of data. Much information is not static, but rather is a
| growing or changing development from year-to-year.
|
| Using today's generic tools to search for digital information
| relevant to a specific version or time period of anything is very
| ad-hoc, hit-and-miss. And we're only a mere few decades in. I
| think the time context of data is going to become increasingly
| important and valuable.
| double0jimb0 wrote:
| Autodesk deserves to be poster child for enshitification.
|
| A few weeks ago I found a video that allowed me to work around a
| bug in Inventor 2025 that has existed for 20 years... the video
| was a grainy screen capture from a Windows 97 machine!
|
| And each year I pay more for a product that gets worse.
| sota_pop wrote:
| As someone who used Revit for 5 years before moving to develop
| and maintain custom Revit API apps full-time, I have many horror
| stories I could share (feel free to AMA). I can say that the
| latest version of Revit (R2025) is largely a single-threaded
| application, and has only just upgraded their back-end from .Net
| Framework 4.8.1 to .Net8.0. The company continuously and openly
| takes breathtakingly blatant advantage of their user base and is
| at worst adversarial to their users. The software captures and
| exchanges a surprising amount of data during usage (to the point
| that Revit itself is hard to distinguish between malware by
| network cybersec software). Autodesk is a walking-talking
| timebomb of an antitrust suit waiting to happen. With that said,
| Revit does a lot of things well and there are no realistic
| alternatives. Personally, I have always found community responses
| on forums very helpful while autodesk support has ranged from
| helpful, to useless, to simultaneously counter-productive and
| insulting. Jeremy Tammik (officially affiliated with Autodesk
| these days) and his "The Building Coder Blog" is a very nice
| reference for Revit API and he is somehow EVERYWHERE on the
| forums.
|
| edit: the open letter posted here by another user does a very
| good job detailing many broad issues (with Revit in particular);
| every point it makes is accurate in my experience.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-02 23:01 UTC)