Re: Game Library of the Month

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:

>> (1) "What is it?"
>> That's a little overview of the lib, continuously updated during the
>> reviewing process, so that it starts as just some sentences and ends as a
>> summary of all the other articles. More or less a "dossier" of the lib
>>
>So, people get anything that has been found, even before anything is really
>done?

Notice the part "... continuously updated during the reviewing process, so
that it starts as just some sentences and ends as a summary of all the
other articles"
"start" and "end" as in a timely sense.

>> (3) "Applying it"
>> Now we take some game, one we thing the lib would be well suited for, and
>> modify it to use the lib. That way we get some good data on how it
>> performs, how usable it is in a "real world" situation.
>> This should be done in cooperation with the Game Project of the Month (if
>> we have it by then), because we'll have to dig around in that game to
>> modify it to use the lib.
>>
>Excuse my memory, but what exactly is the "Game Project of the Month" ?

Something the LGDC has been planning to do for quite long, the inspiration
for this Game Library of the Month thing.
Basically taking some game that's still in development and running a series
of articles on it.

>And "some game", what kind of game are you thinking about?

Well, take the covered library and look what kind of game it could be good
for.

>> (4) "Cooperation is good"
>> This would be the part where we use the lib in a "reference" game and try
>> to combine it with some other libs. But I'm not sure anymore whether this
>> is really neccessary, because Article 3 will already provide us with most
>> of this info.
>>
>Article 4 could be included as a part of article 3.

Hmmm, yes. But I think it won't be worth the time to play around with the
reference game. The game from Article 3 will already use a fairly typical
mix of libraries and thus give most of the compatibility info.

>> (5) "Anatomy Studies"
>> Here we look throught the library internals and comment on it (things done
>> especially bad / especially good, presenting some code snippets etc)
>>
>Nice, though I think it would be easy to make mistakes (ie, say something
>that is good is bad, or vice versa, because one does not fully understand
>the intricacies of the lib).
>
>I think such (notice the spellling! :) an article would set the writers up

Hey ! :)

>to be MAJOR flame-bait... :)

Not if the lib author can review the article before release.

>> BTW-does someone know a better name for this?
>>
>Well... The best I can do is "Health check", and that's even worse, so no...


	Christian
-- 

Drive A: not responding...Formatting C: instead