[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [kidsgames] Generic adventure game engine
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Steve Baker wrote:
>
> So, you are condemning the opensource community for not doing
> great things - when you don't know/understand ~80% of the great
> things that are out there.
I condemn OpenSource community for its lack of self-criticism.
*Lots* of geeks are reluctant to use technologies or methods
of work, that would improve soft a lot. *Lots* of user could
lend a hand and boost development of some projects.
Surely, we do all for free and fun. But it's not funny when you
encounter a 300 lines C function made by a _geek_ that's happy
doing such _bull-shit_. Or when you hear that :
" I know it's unstructured and undocumented, but currently I'm just
adding functionality".
He made it for free, but it's basically a shit.
Even so, I admit the existence of good pieces of soft, out there.
But somehow the "geek-trend" is :
- make it run and make it the sooner the better
Instead of :
- make it damnedly structured and clean and understable
( this is funny too).
I think, most geeks have a very limited point of view, and they're
reluctant to use new languages or new techniques.
>
> Sure there is a lot of junk - so there is in any human endeavor.
> The difference is that in the "Open" world, we don't eliminate
> the junk by (for example) having book or record publishers who
> refuse to publish things they don't like.
Don't eliminate junk, but just try to make an effort to do it
better, a bit of self-criticism, a broader mind, a real "open"
mind. How many people think yet that the main programming
language for most problems is C/C++ ?
Come on, with all wonderful scriptic languages we have to prototype,
to embed, to interprete, with no freeing of memory. With all OO
techniques: dispatcher-event,
CORBA (?), generecity, design-on-demand (?) (Eiffel). Logic
programming (Clips, prolog).
Just admit that 90% of geeks are not using technology that would
be useful for them.
> ten apparently suitable routines - then spend another 10 minutes
> downloading them - only to discover that:
>
> Routine A: Only draws dodecahedrons that are 1 unit in diameter so
> they have to be scaled afterwards.
> Routine B: Can only draw dodecahedrons at the origin.
> Routine C: Is 100Mb long because it can draw ANY regular solid.
> Routine D: Doesn't generate surface normals for illumination.
> Routine E: Uses a "non-commercial use only" license.
> Routine F: Is perfect - but relies on an obscure linear math
> library that I don't wish to depend on.
> ...etc...
Even so, it's better to evolve from a pre-made routine, and if they're
written in decent OO it'd be pretty easy.
>
> I can write a routine to draw a dodecahedron in maybe 50 lines -
> taking me about 10 minutes to write and another 10 to debug.
> That's MUCH faster than re-using anything.
For me it's faster to reuse your routine. And it'd be easier if
repositories of routines existed.
> >
> > OOP --> reusable objects, otherwise we're not programming in OO.
>
> Who cares about "reusable objects" and all that theoretical bull.
The question is that lots of theoretical bull HAVE PRACTICAL
BENEFITS.
>
> I want to get a program written in a reasonably short period of
> time - and have it work efficiently and reliably.
I want to get a programm that looks nice structuraly and conceptually,
if it works or not, or people doesn't like it, it's pretty secondary.
I do this for learning , improving myself, not just for getting
more functionality in some area of Open source software.
> > Very good for PLIB library!
>
> So - you like this!
Yes, sounds good.
>
> Well, I've been a practical programmer since about 1973 and
> I can tell you for sure that re-use on the micro scale is
> a pointless activity.
Ok, I was born in 1972, and started programming in middle eighties,
and you seem to do great/succesful pieces of software. Even so,
I'm pretty sure that I can beat you down in terms of wise technology
used and elegance in general. I'd tell you I'm a "geek" if I liked
that term, but after meeting so many "geeks" I definetely dislike
it. I don't like hacker/cracker either. I'm just a programmer.
Ok, a challenge. In
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina/genaut.py there's my crossword
generator for Crosswords for linux .
It uses backtracking/recursion and scripting, that is, theoretical
shit. It's written in Spanish, so you can back in this fact for
not accepting the challenge :PPP.
The question is that genaut.py is damn simple and damn powerful,
and by no means an average "geek" using his average points of
view may come to something as clear and simple as this.
It runs by doing : python genaut.py
- - - - - - - - - - - - - g -
- - - p - - - - - - - h - r -
- - - e - - - - - - c a p a -
- - - s - s - - - - - l - c -
- - m a n o - - p e n a - i -
- - - r - l - - - m - g - a -
- - - - - f - g - b - o - - -
- - - - m a l a j e - - - - -
- - - - - - - t - l - - - - -
- - - - c o h e r e n c i a -
- - - - - - - r - c - - - - -
- - - - - - - i - o - - - - -
- - - - - - - a - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1, 14) DOWN gracia
(2, 4) DOWN pesar
(2, 12) DOWN halago
(4, 6) DOWN solfa
(5, 10) DOWN embeleco
(7, 8) DOWN gateria
(3, 11) ACROSS capa
(5, 3) ACROSS mano
(5, 9) ACROSS pena
(8, 5) ACROSS malaje
(10, 5) ACROSS coherencia
in a local copy I have.
>
> Hmmm - your '.sig' file is particularly apropos to this:
>
.sig's are funny sometimes. But just funny not real.
Regards/Saludos
Manolo
www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina /TeEncontreX.html /texpython.htm
/pyttex.htm /cruo/cruolinux.htm ICQ:77697936 (sirve el ICQ para algo?)
Cold, adj.: When the politicians walk around with their hands in their own pockets.
-
kidsgames@smluc.org -- To get off this list send "unsubscribe kidsgames"
in the body of a message to majordomo@smluc.org