Taking a look. For the past two years I've been thinking about drawing. Why it's difficult, how its possible for people like Kim Jung Gi to draw from their imagination. My theory is that it's a learned thing (as opposed to innate ability), but that it's not taught from primitives well. For example, rotating a cube is something that you cannot really find an explanation for. I think the actual difficulty in drawing (representational-ly) boils down to preserving the identity of objects through rotation. This difficulty is preserved in the presence of perspective or not (orthographic projection).
Drawabox is based on doing exercises to improve your mark making (the accuracy of the marks you draw on the page) and eventually leads to you drawing hundreds of boxes in perspective as a consistent exercise. A lot of people swear by it. I enjoyed the first week of it but decided that drawing is not a priority right now.
Forget it. There's very little that can be taught about drawing.
Drawing from model is about being the kind of character that enjoys spending hours tweaking at tiny details and measuring measuring measuring. Anybody willing to sit 3 hours in front of the model every day can learn it, if he understands that he must measure.
Drawing from imagination like Kim Jung Gi on the other hand is about doing that every day most of the day since you were a little kid, and you probably need an innate ability to boot (and that might be some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder / autism...).
Yeah, I'm not referring to drawing which is copying.
> There's very little that can be taught about drawing.
While drawing from the imagination is largely about using the intuition. The intuition can be trained just like the more analytical side of the brain. I can teach you a few properties of rotation/space, etc, and then give you the right exercises, and then you won't need to use construction to draw.
KJG does have some innate ability, and he was clearly obsessed, but it's not actually the bulk of his method. He has a video about drawing scissors. He can articulate nearly everything he is drawing, specifically the function which guides the design. There are others who can draw like him. Look up Tom Fox.
I created a website spellchecker/proofreader (https://spl.ing). We use aws step functions for the actual processing, it's very cool tech!
Reply with your websites, and I'll run a few checks!
In some sense I'm being /s but the other side of that coin is I'm sure for every 8 people that it makes angry there are 2 who actually convert so :shrug:
Literate programming requires that there is freedom in ordering content in the literate file. Otherwise, you are restricted to the execution order of the computer. The intent of literate programming is to circumvent that requisite. Otherwise the tool is just a pretty printer of sorts.
Here is an updated example, because a few people were asking for a more complex example. This is the literate version of the root of the program. *Note that the markdown doesn't include links (in the macro names) like the html, it's just the most convenient to share.
This is a feature I'm looking to add. It was designed to be included. When I parse the lit file, I record the line no. which will be represented in comments in the generated source file. Hopefully, this will mitigate some of the extra workflow.
The granularity will be for every macro defn, so there will be some ambiguity.
Nice!
I shared in the parent thread about my tool which spell checks sites, it found a few small issues: https://www.spl.ing/report-card?website=pinkpigeon.co.uk&uui...