Naming of the "field" concept #91050

New Issue

Jacques Lucke · 2021-08-30T11:14:45+02:00

Jacques Lucke commented

2021-08-30 11:14:45 +02:00

I used the term field in the proposal because when I originally thought about it, the generated functions would only depend on position most of of the time. Now with anonymous attributes, "fields" often depend on other things as well and the term "field" does not make too much sense in some cases. Below I list a few alternatives, feel free to add more.

Falloff: This term mostly makes sense when controlling a float input in the range 0-1. A field can do that, but I see falloffs as a special case of fields and as such I find the name worse than fields.
Field: People know that term already, but that might not be enough reason to stick to it. Generally, the concepts of scalar and vector fields are fairly ubiquitous in some areas but mostly refer to functions that only depend on position and sometimes on time. As such they are also only more of a special case.
Function: That's a concept that at least technical artists will probably know from programming. It describes "fields" more correctly and is a name that could easily be used in other areas of Blender as well where "field" may make less sense. It should be noted that "fields" are not any kind of function in the proposal. They are functions with "semantic inputs" (which the caller of the function can understand) and a single output. The terms "vector function", "integer function" etc. could be used to describe the different types of functions. Not sure if the "semantic input" idea can be integrated into the name somehow.
Callback: Very similar to "function".
Operation: Also similarly to "function" but I don't like it as much, because to me "operation" sounds like it may have side effects.
Procedure: Same as "operation".

I used the term field in the proposal because when I originally thought about it, the generated functions would only depend on position most of of the time. Now with anonymous attributes, "fields" often depend on other things as well and the term "field" does not make too much sense in some cases. Below I list a few alternatives, feel free to add more. * Falloff: This term mostly makes sense when controlling a float input in the range 0-1. A field can do that, but I see falloffs as a special case of fields and as such I find the name worse than fields. * Field: People know that term already, but that might not be enough reason to stick to it. Generally, the concepts of scalar and vector fields are fairly ubiquitous in some areas but mostly refer to functions that only depend on position and sometimes on time. As such they are also only more of a special case. * Function: That's a concept that at least technical artists will probably know from programming. It describes "fields" more correctly and is a name that could easily be used in other areas of Blender as well where "field" may make less sense. It should be noted that "fields" are not any kind of function in the proposal. They are functions with "semantic inputs" (which the caller of the function can understand) and a single output. The terms "vector function", "integer function" etc. could be used to describe the different types of functions. Not sure if the "semantic input" idea can be integrated into the name somehow. * Callback: Very similar to "function". * Operation: Also similarly to "function" but I don't like it as much, because to me "operation" sounds like it may have side effects. * Procedure: Same as "operation".

Jacques Lucke commented

2021-08-30 11:14:45 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke

Jacques Lucke changed title from ~~Naming of fields and related concepts~~ to Naming of the "field" concept

2021-08-30 11:33:28 +02:00

Evan Wilson commented

2021-08-30 16:04:15 +02:00

Added subscriber: @EAW

Evan Wilson commented

2021-08-30 16:04:15 +02:00

semantic input

What does this mean? How would you explain it to an artist who knows nothing about computer science, in one sentence, because that is all that can fit in a tooltip.

Just something to consider when considering the choice of names. 😉

>semantic input What does this mean? How would you explain it to an artist who knows nothing about computer science, in one sentence, because that is all that can fit in a tooltip. Just something to consider when considering the choice of names. 😉

Jacques Lucke commented

2021-08-30 16:26:53 +02:00

To an artist I'd probably have to explain what a "non-semantic input" is (note, I'm making these terms up on the fly here).
"Semantic input": The caller can understand what data should be passed into the function when it is evaluated (i.e. it "just works"). Maybe it could also be described like this: "The input has a reference to the data that is passed into it". This reference can be an attribute name but also other things.
"Non-semantic input": The function has some inputs, but the caller has no idea what the individual inputs are. The user would have to tell the node explicitly where to get the data for every input from.

Hope that makes sense, I'm still trying to figure out the naming myself as well :)

To an artist I'd probably have to explain what a "non-semantic input" is (note, I'm making these terms up on the fly here). "Semantic input": The caller can understand what data should be passed into the function when it is evaluated (i.e. it "just works"). Maybe it could also be described like this: "The input has a reference to the data that is passed into it". This reference can be an attribute name but also other things. "Non-semantic input": The function has some inputs, but the caller has no idea what the individual inputs are. The user would have to tell the node explicitly where to get the data for every input from. Hope that makes sense, I'm still trying to figure out the naming myself as well :)

HEYPictures commented

2021-08-30 18:02:22 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Florian-10

HEYPictures commented

2021-08-30 18:02:22 +02:00

I like "fields"

Hans Goudey commented

2021-08-30 18:24:17 +02:00

Added subscriber: @HooglyBoogly

Hans Goudey commented

2021-08-30 18:24:17 +02:00

Hi @Florian-10, thanks for the input, but it is much more helpful if you include some reasoning. Since decisions aren't really made by voting, it's best to have the merits of your opinion explained!

For the record, I think I like "Fields" the most too. I never really thought of it in the physics sense of "position -> value", I thought of the word like a more specific/nuanced meaning of "Input" which is one of its definitions.
It's also quick to say, it's general enough that it probably doesn't scare people (which is really something to consider!), but it also helpfully sends people's understanding in the right direction (I think).

"Function" was also tempting to me, but I think a function is something that builds the field or operates on values, and doesn't really work to describe an input.
It would also remind people of programming. While that might help some users, I'm pretty sure it will turn people off too.

Maybe there's another better option, but I haven't thought of it!

Hi @Florian-10, thanks for the input, but it is much more helpful if you include some reasoning. Since decisions aren't really made by voting, it's best to have the merits of your opinion explained! For the record, I think I like "Fields" the most too. I never really thought of it in the physics sense of "position -> value", I thought of the word like a more specific/nuanced meaning of "Input" which is one of its definitions. It's also quick to say, it's general enough that it probably doesn't scare people (which is really something to consider!), but it also helpfully sends people's understanding in the right direction (I think). "Function" was also tempting to me, but I think a function is something that builds the field or operates on values, and doesn't really work to describe an input. It would also remind people of programming. While that might help some users, I'm pretty sure it will turn people off too. Maybe there's another better option, but I haven't thought of it!

Piotr Adamowicz commented

2021-08-30 19:23:29 +02:00

Added subscriber: @MadMinstrel

Piotr Adamowicz commented

2021-08-30 19:23:29 +02:00

Field. Because it's short, accurate, limited in scope and easy to say. Function is too general and in this context invokes expectations of complex programs and text-based scripting. (Same goes for callback, operation and procedure.)
Falloff just sounds out of place and entirely weird.

Field. Because it's short, accurate, limited in scope and easy to say. Function is too general and in this context invokes expectations of complex programs and text-based scripting. (Same goes for callback, operation and procedure.) Falloff just sounds out of place and entirely weird.

Ray molenkamp commented

2021-08-30 20:55:33 +02:00

Added subscriber: @LazyDodo

Ray molenkamp commented

2021-08-30 20:55:33 +02:00

With scalar fields and vector fields being common in mathematics it probably be counter intuitive to call them anything else,

Generally, the concepts of scalar and vector fields are fairly ubiquitous in some areas but mostly refer to functions that only depend on position and sometimes on time. As such they are also only more of a special case.

Not sure how true "mostly" this is, i can come up with more examples that require more input variables than ones that just need position and time, if one were to calculate a gravitational field of a solar system, yes you need a position to calculate this field, but also the location and mass for the objects participating in said solar system. Even a basic signed distance field for a cube requires at-least a size in addition to position.

It's perhaps good to separate some concepts , the output is without a doubt "a field" , however thing that makes/defines/constructs that output would probably be best off being called something different, generating function perhaps or just generator?

With scalar fields and vector fields being common in mathematics it probably be counter intuitive to call them anything else, > Generally, the concepts of scalar and vector fields are fairly ubiquitous in some areas but mostly refer to functions that only depend on position and sometimes on time. As such they are also only more of a special case. Not sure how true "mostly" this is, i can come up with more examples that require more input variables than ones that just need position and time, if one were to calculate a gravitational field of a solar system, yes you need a position to calculate this field, but also the location and mass for the objects participating in said solar system. Even a basic signed distance field for a cube requires at-least a size in addition to position. It's perhaps good to separate some concepts , the output is without a doubt "a field" , however thing that makes/defines/constructs that output would probably be best off being called something different, [generating function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generating_function) perhaps or just generator?

HEYPictures commented

2021-08-30 22:18:52 +02:00

In #91050#1213583, @MadMinstrel wrote:
Field. Because it's short, accurate, limited in scope and easy to say. Function is too general and in this context invokes expectations of complex programs and text-based scripting. (Same goes for callback, operation and procedure.)
Falloff just sounds out of place and entirely weird.

Thought the same way

> In #91050#1213583, @MadMinstrel wrote: > Field. Because it's short, accurate, limited in scope and easy to say. Function is too general and in this context invokes expectations of complex programs and text-based scripting. (Same goes for callback, operation and procedure.) > Falloff just sounds out of place and entirely weird. Thought the same way

Himanshi Kalra commented

2021-09-01 13:00:55 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Calra

Himanshi Kalra commented

2021-09-01 13:00:55 +02:00

I would like to suggest a new portmanteau "F-fields" (read as Function Fields) where F stands for functions. Fields, for the initial reasons mentioned in the task description, and prepending with F for functions because the behavior has been changed.

Dalai Felinto commented

2021-09-01 16:40:32 +02:00

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Dalai Felinto commented

2021-09-01 16:40:32 +02:00

Where are users exposed to this? Tooltips and documentation only?

Jacques Lucke commented

2021-09-01 17:00:07 +02:00

People have to be able to talk about this concept. For that it needs a name. Don't know if the name will be visible in Blender or only in the documentation.

Jacques Lucke commented

2021-09-17 15:51:01 +02:00

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Resolved'

Jacques Lucke closed this issue

2021-09-17 15:51:01 +02:00

Jacques Lucke self-assigned this 2021-09-17 15:51:01 +02:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Naming of the "field" concept #91050