Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

[vocx]

...it's unusable for any serious work. ...

FreeCAD is a (very) nice toy, but only that.

Please stop with the hyperbole. I myself think that FreeCAD is not nearly as mature as some users and developers think. But let's not go all the way with your negativity. Talking like this just makes me think of the miserable life that you have lived. Just because FreeCAD isn't used at CERN or NASA, or whatever, it doesn't mean it isn't used for serious work.

For v0.20, FreeCAD should do a feature-freeze and concentrate exclusively on stability and user interaction...

Not in my opinion. I think there are plenty of features that can be added to FreeCAD while keeping it stable. Just look at the enormous steps that TechDraw has taken, and the assembly workbenches.

You won't have a feature freeze with the hundreds of commits by realthunder still in the queue, with topological naming and so on. That's precisely why I consider it not ready for 1.0. To me 1.0 means it has enough features, and it's well tested, with a stable programming interface and documentation. We can only test App Link and the assembly workbenches over the course of several years. After that, then we can think about 1.0, and then incremental features for 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. Then if we decide to break some compatibility, then we can make 2.0, 2.1, etc.

[vocx]

An important technical note, to me at least, is semantic versioning...

I like it. I think this is what Python does, no?

I think it makes the most sense. So, right now, we are clearly in 0.x phase. Plenty of development needs to be done, and things may break a bit here and there.

I think we can still re-factor some key aspects of the Python programming interface, so we don't need to set them in stone yet. But once we reach 1.0, then we should keep them somewhat stable, that is, until 2.0 comes.

[chrisb]

To adapt a well known phrase:

It's named what it's named!

1.0 is no certificate, nor does it assure the presence of any features. Of course there are people - and always will be - who absolutely cannot use FreeCAD for some missing feature or other reason. Today I tried to prepare my breakfast with FreeCAD and it miserably failed, if anyone can confirm I may create a ticket.
Of course we can make a list with features to be included before going 1.0, and we can think of metrics to measure the quality - which may turn out to be near to impossible for code, features, and user experience.
But we might as well save the time and just let it go. Saying FreeCAD cannot be used in a professional environment is a lie: it is used by members of this forum to make a living. Saying FreeCAD cannot be used to build great models is a lie: there are such models in the Showcase forum. Saying a software has to provide this feature and that before being called 1.0 is ... well you may guess it. Look at programs such as the Windows notepad. You could almost say it had no features at all, and it was included since more than 20 years.
And because repitions of the already known take the biggest part of such topics let me end with:

It's named what it's named!

[microelly2]

It's named what it's named!

Stop whining - start coding! (the mantra of jriegel)

[JulianStirling]

FreeCAD cannot be used in a professional environment is a lie: it is used by members of this forum to make a living. Saying FreeCAD cannot be used to build great models is a lie: there are such models in the Showcase forum.

I use it in a professional environment because we share work openly and want to avoid lock-in. That doesn't mean I think it is ready for the prime time. I often have to export Technical Drawings as SVGs and then add on half the symbols manually. I will do that because I care about using something open, most people wont, especially in big companies/universities. Some people use it to make a living, how many of those are doing Mechanical CAD, and sending technical drawings to workshops? How many of them are businesses churning out advanced parts on a short timescale that will need many iterations? FreeCAD should want these people to want to use it. It should then consider what these people would need before they were tempted.

It's named what it's named!

What it is named in the grand scheme of things makes little difference except a perception of maturity. A perception of maturity may come with a plan of where the project is going and what features are needed to make FreeCAD a viable alternative more people.

Today I tried to prepare my breakfast with FreeCAD and it miserably failed, if anyone can confirm I may create a ticket.

Sure FreeCAD cannot make your breakfast, and if it was called FreeBreakfastMaker then I would agree that it is a problem. Problems with making 2D CAD drawings is much more in the wheelhouse of a CAD program and it would be reasonable to admit that any mechanical CAD package should be able to do that. Perhaps that should be put that on some kind of plan of where FreeCAD is going towards - long-term. Of course if your workflow is to make parts which are 3D printed and you skip the drawing phase then you can happily use it to make a living, doesn't mean people are lying when they say they can't use it to make theirs.

Stop whining - start coding! (the mantra of jriegel)

A wonderful mantra for a hobby project. But as discussions keep popping up about how to get funding/sponsorship/university collaboration it perhaps is time to grow up and realise that not every CAD user is C++ programmer with the time, energy, and skills to write their own tool. In the same way that you didn't write your operating system, nor the software for this chat forum. These are tools to you, and you don't have the time to write every tool you use.

If FreeCAD wants to mature into something like Blender with full time devs, companies supporting it, and a significant proportion of professionals using it then it might need to have to consider what those who may fund it would need. A lot of what they would need is to know that if they had an issue someone might try to listen, rather than to just tell them to "Stop whining - start coding!"

[triplus]

I don't understand what you mean. Neutral in what sense? The thread title was picked with the purpose of explaining why FreeCAD is not ready for a 1.0 version, which I explained in the first post.

I don't care about the title anymore, as i realized that is of a less importance. As far as i am concerned it can say FreeCAD is a Spaceship.

P.S. I will share my opinion, but will likely do that in March. Will read all the ongoing discussion in this area before doing that.

[Joel_graff]

So as I follow this discussion (among many others in the past), the diversity of strong opinions on this subject is worth noting. Specifically, @zolko, @vocx, and @bernd represent the entire spectrum of views and they're all valid views made by regular contributors to this project... I think that's a testament to the active and healthy community we have here. FC's community still stands out to me as one of the better examples among open source projects.

To the point however, I don't think it really matters whether or not we adopt a 1.0 scheme, use a number to track the year (with an underlying versioning), or continue as we have. This discussion does, however, reflect a strong need for a clear vision on what needs to be done to move FreeCAD forward. We're seeing the potential for increased interaction with major open source projects (like Blender), we have the potential to generate funding to hire full time developers, the final pieces of a 'feature complete' parametric CAD tool have begun to resolve themselves (like Assembly), and Kurt has done so much work in providing consistent and faster build processes, packaging dependencies and managing server infrastructure. We're incredibly fortunate to have him. Further, we can (and do) provide regular updates during the development cycle, and I really think a hard, consistent, annual release cycle is something well within reach. All of these items would go a long way to maturing FreeCAD in the areas where it lacks the most.

I completely agree that FC may not be 1.0-ready on a production level compared to other open source projects, but I see so much growth and positive change in the project in the last two years alone, I really think we need to compromise and pick few major items that are within reach spread across the spectrum of changes we're seeing - things like funding, packaging, dependencies, features and bug fixes. We have focus / work being done in all of these areas - why not tap the people most vested in them to develop a project roadmap for v1.0?

[vocx]

To adapt a well known phrase:

It's named what it's named!

I've never used this phrase in any context. Where does it come from?

1.0 is no certificate, nor does it assure the presence of any features. ...

Of course not, but I think everybody has an intuitive feeling of when something is "ready". The whole purpose of this thread is not to say FreeCAD is word censored. Of course, it is not. It is very good, but it's not just "there" yet.

Of course we can make a list with features to be included before going 1.0, and we can think of metrics to measure the quality ... Saying a software has to provide this feature and that before being called 1.0 is ... well you may guess it.

A lie? It's not a lie to say something is still not ready. Success is measured from realistic expectations, not just any expectation. I outlined what I think is realistic in the first post. Do you really think it's impossible to achieve some of that in a reasonable amount of time? What it seems to me, is that some people have very low standards of what quality software is, or have rather high expectations of what a software should do. Obviously, we need to find that middle. I think we are very much in the middle but we need more time to polish things up and have a quality product with high standards and good expectations.

Look at programs such as the Windows notepad. You could almost say it had no features at all, and it was included since more than 20 years.

You cannot compare Notepad to FreeCAD. In what world does that make sense? The only comparison where this is valid is if FreeCAD had stayed with the features it had in 2005 and only had the Part Workbench. A barebones program that only does one thing, that would be FreeCAD with a basic solid modeller and boolean operations.

[vocx]

...
I completely agree that FC may not be 1.0-ready on a production level compared to other open source projects, but I see so much growth and positive change in the project in the last two years alone, ... why not tap the people most vested in them to develop a project roadmap for v1.0?

I agree with what you write.

The purpose of this thread is not to bash yet again FreeCAD, like many new users who get frustrated do. The purpose is to recognize that we are doing a good job, a great job in many aspects, but still, we are not "there" yet. I just don't want to rush development to call it 1.0 and subsequently disappoint many people. The numbering version is important because in most people's minds it does provide a good sense of the state of completeness of the software.

[chrisb]

It's named what it's named!

I've never used this phrase in any context. Where does it come from?

"It's done when it's done" is the original phrase. You may search the forum for its multiple occurrences.

1.0 is no certificate, nor does it assure the presence of any features. ...

Of course not, but I think everybody has an intuitive feeling of when something is "ready".

"ready" is not 1.0, ready usually comes much later. 1.0 is the very first version after beta!

Of course we can make a list with features to be included before going 1.0, and we can think of metrics to measure the quality ... Saying a software has to provide this feature and that before being called 1.0 is ... well you may guess it.

A lie? It's not a lie to say something is still not ready.

You are very obviously stating something that is right. And it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't quote you, and I didn't meant you. You expressed your view clearly as an opinion and that's ok.

Do you really think it's impossible to achieve some of that in a reasonable amount of time?

No.

Look at programs such as the Windows notepad. You could almost say it had no features at all, and it was included since more than 20 years.

You cannot compare Notepad to FreeCAD. In what world does that make sense? The only comparison where this is valid is if FreeCAD had stayed with the features it had in 2005 and only had the Part Workbench. A barebones program that only does one thing, that would be FreeCAD with a basic solid modeller and boolean operations.

Very interesting argument, as it says that such a FreeCAD could well be called 1.0. Since we are now much further, it should get a higher number, not lower.

You may note, that I neither voted for nor against calling it 1.0. I wanted to express that it is solely a selfmade in-house problem. I actually don't care what it is named, I prefer to skip the magic 1.0 completely and go to version 20 or 2020 directly. It fits best the phrase "it's done when it's done", as it states: "this is our FreeCAD we have in 2020". Noone, especially no company will rely on a "1.0" label and say "oh it's a 1.0, great! That means it is reliable and has all the features we need. Let's take it".

Like triplus I prefer to have this discussion after 0.19 has been released, and we can think about the next version.